Re: FOR NEXT behavior

"R.Nicholson" <rhnlogic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1189735707.396021.158330@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 9, 11:24 am, "Tom Lake" <tl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message

> I'm surprised that you didn't mention that the Basic
> Standard says that a FOR NEXT loop should be skipped
> if the initial value fails the end loop comparison.
> I think that was the way it was originally implemented
> in Dartmouth Basic.

Darn!  I missed a chance to push my agenda!  8^)
Yes, Dartmouth BASIC always skipped the body of
the loop if the initial conditions weren't met.  So says
the very first BASIC manual (1964) which is available
free at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_BASIC

> I've once wondered whether I should put in a switch
> to optionally do one iteration in order to be more
> compatible with various "street" Basic programs.

It does offer more flexibility that way.  Just remember,
though, if you try to please everybody, you end up
pleasing nobody.  So don't try to please everybody.
Just me.  8^)

Tom Lake