How much I hate when I see

double x;
if (x = 1)
do_something();

Seriously, why is that so appealing to you?

As well as

int i = 0;
for (; i < n; ++i)
do_something();

Sorry, but 'initialize'

@Mitiko american english / british english

@Mitiko yup, if you are American and/or speak American English. I'm Italian and I like it more the British way!

Oops, sorry. Not a native speaker, too

int i = 0;

for(; i<5; i++)
{
k = my_array[i];
if(k % 5 == 0) break;
}

t = my_array[i].val;

...

Maybe you need it, maybe you must comply to C89 specs...

Ok...
I just have to..

double x;
if(x == 1) not if(x = 1) - that is assignment :P

And if you have a double, please don't compare, use diff to a specific precision.

Is it not possible to block scope a variable to the loop in c???

@-eth True that, and I don't see nothing bad with it. Also, what if you create an additional variable with a *meaningful* name (such as the one that indicates why you broke the loop)?

@viking8 there's no typo in my post. I meant the assignment (otherwise where would the rant be ;) ).

Also, sometimes you need special case handling, like if something is not as expected you make x = -1. In other case of course you should include a tolerance!

Yessss. This is damn irritating.

@nicholai it wasn't until C89 I think. You actually *had* to declare every variable on the very top of your function

@Krokoklemme horrifying

@nicholai ikr

And before ANSI C, function definitions looked like this:

main(argc, argv) // 'int' assumed as return type and as type for 'argc'
char** argv;
{
// code
}