Loops in C - for() or while() - which is BEST? - c

for() or while() - which is BEST?
for (i=1; i<a; i++)
/* do something */
OR
i=1;
while (i<a) {
/* do something */
i++;
}

The first is the idiomatic way; it is what most C coders will expect to see. However, I should note that most people will also expect to see
for(i = 0; i < a; i++)
Note that the loop starts at zero. This will do something a times. If you're going to write a while loop that is equivalent to a for loop as above I strongly encourage you to write it as a for loop. Again, it is what C coders expect to see. Further, as a for loop it is easier to read as everything (initialization, loop condition, expression to be executed after each iteration) are all on one line. For the while loop they are spread out hindering readability.
Note, however, there are circumstances in which seemingly equivalent for and while loops are actually not. For example:
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if(i == 5) continue;
printf("%d\n", i);
}
and
i = 0;
while(i < 10) {
if(i == 5) continue;
printf("%d\n", i);
i++;
}
appear at first glance to be equivalent but they are not. The for loop will print 0--9 skipping 5 on the console whereas the while loop will print 0--4 on the console and then enter an infinite loop.
Now, that handles the simple case that you asked about. What about the more complex cases that you didn't ask about? Well, it really depends but a good rule of thumb is this: if you are going to repeat something a fixed pre-determined number of times, a for loop is generally best. Otherwise, use a while loop. This is not a hard-and-fast rule but it is a good rule-of-thumb. For example, you could write
unsigned int v;
unsigned int c;
for(c = 0; v; v >>= 1) c += v & 1;
but I think most C programmers would write this as
unsigned int v;
unsigned int c;
c = 0;
while(v) { c += v & 1; v >>= 1; }
Or, as another example, if you're going to read until the end of a file then you should use a while loop. Thus
FILE *fp;
fp = fopen(path, "r");
while(fgets(buf, max, fp) != NULL) { /* something */ }
instead of
FILE *fp;
for(fp = fopen(path, "r"); fgets(buf, max, fp) != NULL; ) { /* something */ }
Now, reaching into religious territory, this is why I prefer while(1) as the right way to do an infinite loop over for(;;).
Hope that helps.

It depends. What makes the reading most easy should be a guideline IMHO. If you know bounds beforehand you probably should use 'for'. Because it clearly says in one line where the looping starts, it ends and how to go from one element to the other.

Vote up for Dan McG - if the loop has a fixed count, etc., use for - it's more idiomatic. Classic cases of each:
for (i = 0; i < THRESHOLD; ++i) {
something;
}
Vs.
while (foo->next) {
foo = foo -> next;
}
Also: if you find yourself leaving out conditions in your for, consider what it would be like if you reworte it as a while.
At the end of the day: go back and read each version of the loop. Which one stands out more in your mind as "clear" in intent?

Which one makes most sense in the situation.
The for loop tells you it is most probably a fixed count loop. Starting at 1 ending before a.
The while loop doesn't imply any such thing, just that it ends once i >= a (at least from just reading the while (i<a){ at the top).
Of course, this isn't a rule and programmers generally do as they see fit, but it does make it easy to read through code without having to backtrack to comprehend some section.

Related

In this programe why we add the semicolon out of for loop

#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int n,l,t;
printf("Enter a number : ");
scanf("%d",&n);
for(l=1,t=n/10;t!=0;t/=10,l*=10);
printf("\nThe pattern\n");
for(t=n;t!=0;t%=l,l/=10)
printf("\n%d",t);
}
In this programe why we add the semicolon out of for loop?
Because all the code the loop should do is already included in the header, there's nothing meaningful left in the body to do.
The semicolon is a shorter alternative for having a pair of empty braces like
for(l = 1, t = n / 10; t != 0; t /= 10, l *= 10) { }
Actually, the semicolon is an expression on its own, though an empty one, it would be equivalent to explicitly telling not to do anything at all like
for( ... )
(void)0; // does nothing
Admitted, this loop is not really beginner-friendly and requires a bit of experience in reading ;)
An easier to read variant effectively doing the same could look like:
l = 1;
for(t = n / 10; t != 0; t /= 10)
{
l *= 10;
}
Now the loop covers five lines, though, and compactness obviously was the reason of the original code's author to write it as it is.
Having compact code is fine, though readability should never suffer from. This piece of code is a pretty good example for overly (thus bad) compact code. A counter-example might be using the ternary operator in favour of an if-else clause – provided you don't get endlessly long code lines in trying to apply so...

C for loop optimisation by embedding statements into loop-head itself

Just wondering if these variations of for loops are more efficient and practical.
By messing with the c for loop syntax i can embedd statements that would go in the loop-body into the loop-head like so:
Example 1:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
// Simple program that prints out the command line arguments passed in
if (argc > 1)
{
for(int i = 1; puts(argv[i++]), i < argc;);
// This does the same as this:
// for(int i = 1; i < argc; i++)
// {
// puts(argv[i]);
// }
}
return 0;
}
I understand how the commas work in the for loop it goes through each statement in order, evaluates them then disregards all but the last one which is why it is able to iterate using the "i < argc"condition. There is no need for the final segment to increment the i variable as i did that in the middle segment of the loop head (in the puts(argv[i++]) bit).
Is this more efficient or is just just cleaner to seperate it into the loop body rather than combine it all into one line?
Example 2:
int stringLength(const char * string)
{
// Function that counts characters up until null terminator character and returns the total
int counter = 0;
for(counter; string[counter] != '\0'; counter++);
return counter;
// Same as:
//int counter = 0;
// for(int i = 0; string[i] != '\0'; i++)
//{
// counter++;
//}
//return counter;
}
This one seems more efficient than the version with the loop body as no local variable for the for-loop is initialised. Is it conventional to do these sorts of loops with no bodies?
Step 1: Correctness
Make sure code is correct.
Consider OP's code below. Does it attempt to print argv[argc] which would be bad?
if (argc > 1) {
for(int i = 1; puts(argv[i++]), i < argc;);
I initially thought it did. So did another user. Yet it OK.
… and this is exactly why code is weak.
Code not only should be correct, better code looks correct too. Using an anti-pattern as suggested by OP is rarely1 as good thing.
Step 2: Since code variations have the same big O, focus on understandably.
Sculpt your code – remove what is not needed.
for (int i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
puts(argv[i]);
}
What OP is doing is a trivial optimization concern.
Is premature optimization really the root of all evil?
Is it conventional to do these sorts of loops with no bodies?
Not really.
The key to the style of coding is to follow your group's style guide. Great software is often a team effort. If your group's likes to minimize bodies, go ahead. I have seen the opposite more common, explicit { some_code } bodies.
Note: int stringLength(const char * string) fails for strings longer than INT_MAX. Better to use size_t as the return type – thus an example of step 1 faltering.
1 All coding style rules, except this rule, have exceptions.

C's For loop's arguments

I want to initialize an 16-cel-long array with 0, 1, 2 and 3 by blocks of four cels. So here is my first attempt at this:
int main(void) {
int t[16];
int i;
for (i = 0; i<=15; t[i++]=i/4)
{
printf("%d \n", t[i]);
}
return 0;
}
However, here is what I get. I know I can do it differently by just getting the affectation into the for loop, but why does this not work?
EDIT: Please do note that the printf only serves to check what the loop did put in the array.
The initialization works fine; you're just printing the cell before initializing it. Remember that the loop increment is done after each iteration. If you unroll the loop, you have:
i = 0; /* i is now 0 */
print(t[i]); /* prints t[0] */
t[i++] = i/4; /* sets t[0] */
/* i is now 1 */
print(t[i]); /* prints t[1] */
t[i++] = i/4; /* sets t[1] */
/* i is now 2 */
print(t[i]); /* prints t[1] */
/* etc. */
As well as the off-by-one errors with the loop begin/end that have been mentioned in other posts, this code:
t[i++]=i/4
causes undefined behaviour because i is read and written without a sequence point. "Undefined behaviour" means anything can happen: the value could be 3, or 4, or anything else, or the program could crash, etc.
See this thread for more in-depth discussion, and welcome to C..:)
I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish, but please let me show you a similar piece of code, first.
int main(void) {
int t[16];
int i;
//edited the code; providing standard way to do the task
for (i = 0; i<=15; i++)
{
t[i]=i/4;
printf("%d \n", t[i]);
}
return 0;
}
EDIT:
The while loop should be written that way:
int i = 0;
while (i<=15){
t[i] = i%4;
i++;
}
Which means set t[i] equal to i%4 and then increment i.
Since you are a beginner, I've updated the for loop and it now provides a standard way to do your task. It's better to have a simple increment on the third for loop command; do the rest of the job inside the for loop, as described above.
#naltipar: Yeah, I just forgot to initialize the first cel, just like grawity pointed out. Actually, the version I wrote for myself was with i++ but even then, since the third expression is executed after each loop, it sent out the same result. But whatever, it is fixed now.
However, I've got another problem which I'm sure I'm missing on but still can't figure it out:
int i = 0;
while (i<=15)
t[++i] = i%4;
This was first:
for(i = 0; i<=15; t[++i] = i%4);
but it resulted with an infinite loop. So in order to make sure that's not a problem specific to for, I switched to while andthe same thing still happens. That being said, it doesn't occur if i replace ++i by i++. I unrolled the whole loop and everything seems just fine...
I'm a beginner, by the way, in case you were wondering.
A clearer way to write this would be much less error-prone:
for (i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
printf ("%d\n", (t[i] = i % 4));
Personally I'd code something that way, but I'd never recommend it. Moreover, I don't really see much benefit in condensing statements like that, especially in the most important category: execution time. It is perhaps more difficult to optimize, so performance could actually degrade when compared to simply using:
for (i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
{
t[i] = i % 4;
printf ("%d\n", t[i]);
}
Even if it is you reading your own code, you make it difficult for your future self to understand. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), and you'll find code is easier to write now and just as easy to modify later if you need to.

C and for loops

I am seeking to a certain position in the file to get an entry count (which tells how many time to do the for loop). can i simply do it like this? i am kind of new to C so please take it easy on me Any input will be valuable. and please dont give me a working program, just tell me if the condition of the for loop would work and if it wouldnt, how i couldpossibly fix it.We can use an example of the entryCount = 40 from fread
psuedocode ofcourse:
unsigned char buffer[8]
fseek (file to position where entry count is);
entryCount = fread (buffer, sozeof(buffer), 1, in);
// cound i just fread(**entryCount**, sizeof(buffer), 1, in); ?
for ( x = 0; x < entryCount; x++ ) {
// execute code as many time is stored in "entryCount"
}
continue script ect
thanks for looking and for your valuable input
almost correct:
you need to have a int declaration for x (or whatever var)
more of a suggestion - 'i' is usually used for loop variables
for (int i = 0; i < entryCount; i++ ) {
// execute code as many time is stored in "entryCount"
}

reversing a string of integers user enters (C)

What I want to do is reverse a string of numbers that the user enters. what happens is it compiles and runs till i hit enter after the scanf. then I get some Microsoft runtime error... what's going wrong???
NOTE: this is homework, but i've got the logic figured out. what baffles me is this error.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
unsigned int giveStr = 0;
char* charIt;
printf("Enter a number to be reversed.\t");
scanf("%d", &giveStr);
fflush(stdin);
sprintf(charIt, "%d", giveStr);
revStr(giveStr);
getchar();
return 0;
}
revStr(unsigned int n)
{
char buffer[100];
int uselessvar, counter = 0;
for (; n > 0;)
{
uselessvar = sprintf(&buffer[counter], "%d", n);
counter++;
}
for (counter = 0; counter > 0;)
{
printf("%c", buffer[counter]);
counter--;
}
return 0;
}
EDIT: flushing stdin for newlines :/ and also image here just not with that program. with mine.
You are trying to access memory which is not allocated in:
sprintf(charIt, "%d", giveStr);
Change char* charIt; to char charIt[50]; and all should be well (well, at least the segmentation fault part)
Also... pass charIt to revStr, as charIt contains the string with our number.
Then, a simple for loop in revStr will do the trick (what was the purpose of the second one, anyway?)
void revStr(char *giveStr)
{
int counter;
for (counter = strlen(giveStr)-1; counter >= 0; counter--)
{
printf("%c", giveStr[counter]);
}
printf("\n");
}
This will print each char our char representation has from the last one till the first one. You should read more on for loops.
For your home work problem, if you have the K&R book, turn to section 3.5 and read it thoroughly.
Note the functions reverse() and itoa(). They should give you a pretty good idea on how to solve your problem.
How does your program get out of the for (; n > 0;) loop? Won't counter simply increase until you get a bus error?
ED:
Respectfully, I think the claim that "i've got the logic figured out" is a little optimistic. :^) Doubtless someone will post the way it should have been done
by the time I'm done writing this, but it's probably worth drawing attention to what went wrong (aside from the memory allocation problems noted elsewhere):
Your first loop, "for (; n > 0;)", is strange because you're printing the entire number n into the buffer at counter. So why would you need to do this more than once? If you were selecting individual digits you might, but you're not, and obviously you know how to do this because you already used "sprintf(charIt, "%d", giveStr);". [Aside: giveStr isn't a great name for an unsigned integer variable!]
Your second loop also has strange conditions: you set counter to 0, set the condition that counter > 0, and then decrease counter inside. This obviously isn't going to loop over the characters in the way you want. Assuming you thought the first loop was character-by-character, then maybe you were thinking to loop down from counter-1 to 0?

Resources