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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Subject: Re: Porting (was ADA and Pascal etc) Date: 1997/11/04 Message-ID: <63ocs9$835$1@darla.visi.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287060610 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <63d5l4$tub$1@helios.crest.nt.com> <878495810snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> Organization: Plethora Internet NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Nov 1997 17:59:05 CST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1997-11-04T17:59:05-06:00 List-Id: In article , Simon Wright wrote: >How does the C++ style localise scope? With the exception of variables >declared in "for" loops, the scope's from the point of declaration to >the end of the current block, not so? Of course not! How could anyone be so *stupid* as to think that the clear explanation in the ARM is correct? C++ being a very stable language, and well designed at all times, the scope of the variable is the for loop; it goes out of scope after the for loop's statement. You may now drop the ARM down the memory hole. C++ has always been at war with Eurasia. -s -- seebs@plethora.net -- Speaking for myself. No spam please. Copyright 1997. All rights reserved. This was not written by my cat. C/Unix wizard - send mail for help! -- - More Net, Less Spam!