On 07-Oct-08 22:55, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> 
>> There's no "for" but you can use "while" for the same purpose.  
> 
> Although it would be nice to have a for loop as well. I understand
> the concept of semantic sugar, but there must be a reason why every 
> programming language in popular use has such a construct. 

And preferably with a counter whose scope is limited to the loop.

Would you like to have arbitrary next item functions or just simply 
numeric increment?

> And in
> SDL in particular I think most loops I've ever seen were actually
> counter-based loops (placing objects, subdivide angles, arrays).

Post a reply to this message