From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Porting (was ADA and Pascal etc) Date: 1997/11/01 Message-ID: <63folb$1ca$1@helios.crest.nt.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287199142 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345AB871.413A@dynamite.com.au> <63d3sm$ap7$3@darla.visi.com> Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Matt Austern wrote: >The draft C++ standard is quite specific, and not at all random. If >you write > for (int i = 0; i < N; +i) { > // loop body > } >then the scope of the variable i does not extend past the end of the >loop. The same holds for while loops and if statements. That may be true of the current draft, but were there not some vaccilation previously with regard to this issue? Isn't it true that at some point, the scope of variable i was confined to within the () parentheses of the for(), making i invisible/unreachable in the statement that follows? -- "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton