[RFC/PATCH] Standardize on "for (;;)" for unbounded loops

[Dirk Mueller]

On Monday 30 October 2006 06:29, Mike Stump wrote:

> while (1) wins.  :-) 

I would prefer "for(;;)" because you can easily read it as "for..ever" if you 
once grasped this (strange) construct. 

In while (1) cases I only have to double check that it is not "while (l)" 
or "while (I) or similiar, depending on your font of choice. "while(TRUE)" 
doesn't have this issue however. 


Dirk