mfz

In some parallell universe this happened at the first try…

Don’t worry too much about it if it doesn’t make sense to you. It can be really valuable if you’re deploying a substantial amount of IoT devices on the edge with no to little possibility to do over the air upgrades reliably or when the cost of failure is high (i.e. a technician has to be on site to fix it). So, sometimes you just want it to be running as stable as possible for as long as possible without management.

I think it was about 1995. I was going to the university and was looking for something Unix compatible I could use at my home computer to perform assignments instead of needing to go into school computer lab. Remote work basically. Think I was using LessTif instead of Motif for some coding task.

Ahh. Those were the days. Used modem to connect to school and connect remotely to the network using Linux. :)

To add to all great comments here I have one that I’ve used for ages and not seen mentioned here: lftp

It supports many protocols for ftp like over ssh and allows for shaky connections with resume and back in the days when this was more common I used to just run it in the background to download huge files that took days to download and it would gracefully just reconnect/resume/retry until done.

It works the same because the value of the last expression in the for loop is not used for anything. It’s the side effect of that statement that counts. Eg, the value of i is checked the next time the for loop is executed by the condition check. Try replacing i in the condition check instead with i++ or ++i and you would see different results.

Something like: for (int i = 0; ++i < 10;) { ... }

Well, not all languages allow for fun programming :)

In C you can group expressions within ( and ) separated with ,. Expressions are evaluated in order and the last expression in the group is the returned value of the group.

If you’re hell bend on achieving the goodness of i++ equivalent you could wrap it up like this:
(i-=-1,i-1)

We’re talking C here of course.

Isn’t the evaluated value different from the expression? i++ returns the value of i before increasing. i-=-1 would return the value after it has been increased. Wouldn’t it be more correct to make it equal to ++i