@tom_forsyth @TheJare @vgebler while(var that doesn't happen to change) is very different from while(1).
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler Consider a constant cpp macro whose name is similar to a variable. You might want to catch that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler In no case does that excuse while(1) generating a warning. Yet that was a real VC warning.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler I maintain that there is no bug that warning about literal while(1) can catch.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler The compiler can't be sure the 1 isn't a macro expansion. for(;;) is an unambiguous alternative.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler And how is for(;;) an unambiguous alternative? Why couldn't I have made a macro that expands to ;;1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler#define ForAllThingsInList(list) ;;1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler Bug, right? Not warned on, because ;; gets a pass, for no reason. Just shitty compilers.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler Macros expanding to true literals are much more common than macros expanding to ;;1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc@tom_forsyth@TheJare@vgebler If its commonality you're concerned about, _actually_ intending while(1) is the most common!2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@taradinoc @tom_forsyth @TheJare @vgebler So obviously you are not concerned with the common case, or there'd be no warning at all.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.