Talk:Variable declaration reset

i>1

(minor point) I think I may have sold you all a bit of a dummy with Phix's i>1, which is correct because of it's 1-based indexes, and the JavaScript typo of i>1 which should have been/is now i>0, but luckily it should make no difference. I also wonder if algol68 should be i>LWB s ?? --Pete Lomax (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

God point, Pete - I've adjusted the code and added a bit more explanation. --Tigerofdarkness (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a bit late now but you could make it lower-bound independent if it was curr>1 instead of i>1 - the effect would be the same. --Tigerofdarkness (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be(/have been) fine too. I also realised far too late that I should have asked for the values instead of the indexes, so we'd get consistent results across 0-based and 1-based indexes... Nevermind. --Pete Lomax (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of purpose

I am having trouble understanding the meaning of the purpose of the task:

The purpose is to determine whether variable declaration (in block scope) resets the contents on every iteration.

Is there a language where a variable declaration inside the body of a loop does *not* reset the contents on every iteration? What would the alternative be like? --Spoon! (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a language where a variable declaration inside the body of a loop does *not* reset the contents on every iteration?

Yes?

What would the alternative be like?

The possible alternatives might be:

• 1) It does reset every time.
• 2) It doesn't reset every time.

or possibly...

• 3) It does or doesn't reset depending on other factors. (see the Raku entry, for example)

--Thundergnat (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)