RE: [GD-General] Variables scope

[Magnus A. <mag...@st...>]

I've always used this:

#define for if(false); else for

It will behave correctly in your case as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jorrit Tyberghein [mailto:Jor...@uz...]=20
Sent: den 4 februari 2004 15:25
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-General] Variables scope

CAVEY GERARD wrote:

>>Kristoffer Gr=F6nlund wrote:
>>
>>   =20
>>
>>>The way I've worked around this in the past has been by redefining =
for as
>>>follows:
>>>#define for if (false) {} else for
>>>
>>>Yes, it's a hideously ugly hack, but so is the problem in the first
place.
>>>I've never had any problems because of it.
>>>=20
>>>
>>>     =20
>>>
>>Hmm... sounds like an ugly solution for something that is more simply =

>>solved by just
>>declaring the loop counter outside the for.
>>   =20
>>
>
>Hi=20
>As Mr Aravelo(pyrostudios) told me out of list
>it can also be written=20
>#define for if (1) for
>a bit simpler ...
> =20
>
Yes but that can give bad results. For example:

if (a > b)
    for (...)
else
    ...

With your version of 'for' the 'else' branch will never execute since =
it=20
will be
the 'else' for the 'if (1)'. With the previous version of 'for' that=20
problem is not there
because there is already an 'else' branch given in the 'for' define.

Greetings,




-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557