exactly.. this was the  reason why the code appeared wierd
alok


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen B Webb [SMTP:sbwebb0@SAC.UKY.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 8:39 PM
> To:   PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: quick question on C
>
> > i came across the following 'for' statement in a code:
> >
> > for (pass=rx_str[ptr1+1]; ptr1<size && pass; ptr1++) {
> >
> > i'm curious about about the 'ptr1<size && pass' of the statement as i
> > have never come across a for loop layed out in this way.
> > 1. is this valid?
>
> Yes, it is valid.  It is unclear code, and I'm not sure that it does what
> the author wanted it to do.
>
> > 2. if so, is it the same as saying 'ptr1<size && ptr1<pass' ?
>
> No, it's the same as saying
>
> (ptr1<size) && (pass!=0)
>
>
> The reason I was suggesting that it may not do what the author intended is
> because the first statement:
>
> pass=rx_str[ptr1+1] gets evaluated exactly one time, so pass does not get
> updated each loop iteration.  Unless pass is updated in the loop body, or
> the programmer intended to only test the 'firsrt' value of pass, then the
> code is probably broken.
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads