Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrianratnapala | Hacker News Reader

I didn't know that whiles were less normal than fors.

And though I don't object to for loops in this situation, I really had to puzzle yours out, because of the way your loop pointer is one behind the place of interest.

I believe you when you say it is segfault-free, but again I would have to puzzle at the code to be sure.

View on HN

I think I'd be ok with a `while` that looked like this:

  while (prev->next) {
      if (prev->next == entry) break;
      prev = prev->next;
  }

or even this:

  while (prev && prev->next != entry)
      prev = prev->next;

Both are reasonable enough that they wouldn't trigger my (pretty laissez faire) sense of "taste". My core point: checking for the end of the list should be non-negotiable.

The `for` is just extra icing: it creates a scope for `prev`; you can tell at a glance that it's traversing a list. The update is closer to the termination check. But yes, this bit is negotiable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com