the loop with while
in [ASM]
|
From: X77 on 9 Apr 2008 18:46 "X77" <a(a)b.c> ha scritto nel messaggio news:47fd3e34$0$35958$4fafbaef(a)reader2.news.tin.it... and so, > if you have to assign a vote for my english or for how i write > from 1 to 10; it will be ...
From: X77 on 9 Apr 2008 19:09 > "X77" <a(a)b.c> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:47fd3e34$0$35958$4fafbaef(a)reader2.news.tin.it... and so, > and so, > >> if you have to assign a vote for my english or for how i write >> from 1 to 10; it will be ...
From: robertwessel2 on 10 Apr 2008 00:05
On Apr 9, 1:12 pm, "X77" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > Have a Good Morning to all of you. > > If someone of you, is so nice, > here I have a little problem. > > One professor says that in the loop of kind > do > Statements > while(condition) > the loop is taken (there is the jump to "do") > if condition is false. > > I say that there the loop is taken > if the condition is true. I've never seen a language that uses "false" to continue in a while or do/while loop, at least when using the "while" keyword, although it may well be that one exists somewhere. It's not that uncommon however, that true and false are assigned zero and not zero (the reverse of the more common case), which may be part of the confusion. OTOH, some languages do implement an "until" style loop, where the loop stops when the express is true (IOW it runs while the express is false). The Pascal "repeat..until" and Cobol "perform..until" both do that. It may be that your professors thinking of Pascal, which implements (at least in standard Pascal) a conventional while loop, and the repeat..until, but *not* do..while in the C sense. So he may be thinking that the C-style do..while is like the Pascal repeat..until (which it isn't, although it looks very similar). |