blocks|key|1457272|text|while(true)
{

}|type|code-block|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|syntax|javascript|1457273|是我一直使用的，也是我见过其他人用于必须手动中断的循环的。|unstyled|1457274|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$B|C]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|F|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

<pre><code>while(true)
{

}
</code></pre>

Is always what I've used and what I've seen others use for a loop that has to be broken manually.

blocks|key|1242794|text|C#编译器将把这两个|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1242795|for(;;)
{
++++//+...
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1242796|和|1242797|while+(true)
{
++++//+...
}|1242798|转到|1242799|{
++++:label
++++//+...
++++goto+label;
}|1242800|两者的CIL是相同的。大多数人发现while(true)更容易阅读和理解。for(;;)是相当神秘的。|offset|length|style|CODE|1242801|来源：|1242802|我对.NET+Reflector做了更多的修改，并且在Visual+Studio中使用了“优化代码”来编译这两个循环。|1242803|两个循环都编译为(使用.NET反射器)：|1242804|Label_0000:
++++goto+Label_0000;|1242805|Raptors+should+attack+soon.|1242806|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Reflector|1|http://xkcd.com/292/^0|0|0|0|0|0|0|H|B|11|7|0|0|2|E|0|0|0|0|0|R|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|1E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|1F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|1G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|D|7|1H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|1I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|D|7|1J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|O|3|P|5|6|7|1K|8|@$Q|1L|R|1M|S|T]|$Q|1N|R|1O|S|T]]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|U|3|V|5|6|7|1P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|W|3|X|5|6|7|1Q|8|@]|9|@$Q|1R|R|1S|1|1T]]|A|$]]|$1|Y|3|Z|5|6|7|1U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|10|3|11|5|D|7|1V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|12|3|13|5|6|7|1W|8|@]|9|@$Q|1X|R|1Y|1|1Z]]|A|$]]|$1|14|3|-4|5|6|7|20|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|15|$16|$5|17|18|19|A|$1A|1B]]|1C|$5|17|18|19|A|$1A|1D]]]]

The C# compiler will transform both
<pre><code>for(;;)
{
 // ...
}
</code></pre>
and
<pre><code>while (true)
{
 // ...
}
</code></pre>
into
<pre><code>{
 :label
 // ...
 goto label;
}
</code></pre>
The CIL for both is the same. Most people find <code>while(true)</code> to be easier to read and understand. <code>for(;;)</code> is rather cryptic.
<h3>Source:</h3>
I messed a little more with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Reflector" rel="noreferrer">.NET Reflector</a>, and I compiled both loops with the &quot;Optimize Code&quot; on in Visual Studio.
Both loops compile into (with .NET Reflector):
<pre><code>Label_0000:
 goto Label_0000;
</code></pre>
<a href="http://xkcd.com/292/" rel="noreferrer">Raptors should attack soon.</a>

blocks|key|1457245|text|我认为这可能更容易阅读，并且绝对是在C#中使用的标准：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1457246|while(true)
{
+++//Do+My+Loop+Stuff
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1457247|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

I think that this may be easier to read and is definitely the standard for use in C#:

<pre><code>while(true)
{
 //Do My Loop Stuff
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1242862|text|倒吸一口气，使用：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1242863|while+(!false)
{

}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1242864|或者就像jsight指出的那样，你可能想要加倍确定：|offset|length|1242865|while+(!false+&&+true)
{
}|1242866|在人们对我大喊大叫之前，都是相同的CIL代码，我检查了一下:)|1242867|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/users/1432/jsight^0|0|0|4|6|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|W|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|X|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@$I|Z|J|10|1|11]]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|D|7|12|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|O|3|-4|5|6|7|14|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|P|$Q|$5|R|S|T|A|$U|V]]]]

Gasp, use:

<pre><code>while (!false)
{

}
</code></pre>

OR as <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/users/1432/jsight">jsight</a> pointed out, you may want to be doubly sure:

<pre><code>while (!false &amp;&amp; true)
{
}
</code></pre>

Before people yell at me, it's all the same CIL code, I checked :)

blocks|key|1457620|text|如果你想走老路，C#仍然支持goto：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1457621|STARTOVER:++
++++//Do+something
++++goto+STARTOVER;|code-block|syntax|javascript|1457622|对于真正的无限循环，这是go-to命令。=)|1457623|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

If you want to go old school, goto is still supported in C#:

<pre><code>STARTOVER: 
 //Do something
 goto STARTOVER;
</code></pre>

For a truly infinite loop, this is the go-to command. =)

blocks|key|1242417|text|我认为while+(true)更具可读性。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1242418|entityMap^0|3|C|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

I think <code>while (true)</code> is a bit more readable.

blocks|key|1457312|text|在我需要一个真正的无限循环的情况下，我总是使用|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1457313|while(true)+{...}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1457314|它似乎比一个空的for语句更好地表达了意图。|1457315|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

In those situations where I needed a true infinite loop, I've always used

<pre><code>while(true) {...}
</code></pre>

It seems to express intent better than an empty for statement.

blocks|key|1242581|text|应该是while(true)而不是while(1)，所以C#中的while(1)是错误的，是;)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1242582|entityMap^0|3|B|H|8|W|8|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]|$9|K|A|L|B|C]|$9|M|A|N|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|O|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

It should be <code>while(true)</code> not <code>while(1)</code>, so <code>while(1)</code> is incorrect in C#, yes ;)

blocks|key|1242906|text|或者，人们可以说，无论如何，无限循环通常是不好的做法，因为它需要一个退出条件，除非应用程序真的永远运行。但是，如果这是巡航导弹，我会接受一个明确的退出条件可能不是必需的。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1242907|虽然我很喜欢这个：|1242908|for+(float+f+=+16777216f;+f+<+16777217f;+f%2B%2B)+{+}+|code-block|syntax|javascript|1242909|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$G|H]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

Alternatively one could say having an infinite loop is normally bad practice anyway, since it needs an exit condition unless the app really runs forever. However, if this is for a cruise missile I will accept an explicit exit condition might not be required.

Though I do like this one:

<pre><code>for (float f = 16777216f; f &lt; 16777217f; f++) { } 
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1457641|text|我更喜欢稍微“识字”的代码。我更有可能在实践中做这样的事情：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1457642|bool+shouldContinue+=+true;
while+(shouldContinue)
{
++++//+...

++++shouldContinue+=+CheckSomething();
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1457643|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

I prefer slightly more "literate" code. I'm much more likely to do something like this in practice:

<pre><code>bool shouldContinue = true;
while (shouldContinue)
{
 // ...

 shouldContinue = CheckSomething();
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1457681|text|甚至我也说下面的更好:)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1457682|while(true)
{

}|code-block|syntax|javascript|1457683|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

Even I also say the below one is better :)

<pre><code>while(true)
{

}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|1457406|text|就代码可读性而言，我觉得使用任何语言编写的while(true)都更有意义。就计算机如何看待它而言，在今天这个非常高效的编译器和解释器的社会里，真的不应该有任何区别。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1457407|如果有任何性能差异，我相信到MSIL的翻译将会优化。如果你真的想要的话，你可以检查一下。|1457408|entityMap^0|L|B|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@$9|K|A|L|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|M|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|I|$]]

In terms of code readability <code>while(true)</code> in whatever language I feel makes more sense. In terms of how the computer sees it there really shouldn't be any difference in today's society of very efficient compilers and interpreters.

If there is any performance difference to be had I'm sure the translation to MSIL will optimise away. You could check that if you really wanted to.

blocks|key|1457454|text|我之所以说for(;;)是因为CodeDom的限制(虽然循环不能使用CodeDom声明，而for循环被视为迭代循环的更一般形式)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1457455|除了for循环实现既可用于普通代码，也可用于CodeDom生成的代码之外，这是选择此方法的一个相当宽松的理由。也就是说，它可以更标准。|1457456|注意，您可以使用代码片段来创建一个while循环，但整个循环需要是一个代码片段...|1457457|entityMap^0|5|7|0|2|3|0|H|5|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@$9|M|A|N|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@$9|P|A|Q|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|R|8|@$9|S|A|T|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|U|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|K|$]]

The only reason I'd say <code>for(;;)</code> is due the CodeDom limitations (while loops can't be declared using CodeDom and for loops are seen as the more general form as an iteration loop).

This is a pretty loose reason to choose this other than the fact that the <code>for</code> loop implementation can be used both for normal code and CodeDom generated code. That is, it can be more standard.

As a note, you can use code snippets to create a <code>while</code> loop, but the whole loop would need to be a snippet...

blocks|key|1243036|text|如果你在打高尔夫球，我建议你使用for(;;)。除此之外，while(true)具有相同的含义，而且看起来更直观。无论如何，大多数程序员可能会理解这两种变体，所以这并不重要。使用最舒适的方法。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1243037|entityMap^0|G|7|T|B|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]|$9|K|A|L|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

If you're code-golfing, I would suggest <code>for(;;)</code>. Beyond that, <code>while(true)</code> has the same meaning and seems more intuitive. At any rate, most coders will likely understand both variations, so it doesn't really matter. Use what's most comfortable.

blocks|key|1457746|text|它们都有相同的功能，但人们通常更喜欢while(true)。它感觉很容易阅读和理解...|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|1457747|entityMap^0|I|B|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

Both of them have the same function, but people generally prefer <code>while(true)</code>. It feels easy to read and understand...

Back in my C/C++ days, coding an "infinite loop" as

<pre><code>while (true)
</code></pre>

felt more natural and seemed more obvious to me as opposed to

<pre><code>for (;;)
</code></pre>

An encounter with <a href="http://www.gimpel.com/html/pcl.htm" rel="noreferrer">PC-lint</a> in the late 1980's and subsequent best practices discussions broke me of this habit. I have since coded the loops using the <code>for</code> control statement. Today, for the first time in a long while, and perhaps my first need for an infinite loop as a C# developer, I am facing the same situation. Is one of them correct and the other not?

Which is the correct C# infinite loop, for (;;) or while (true)?

回到我的C/C++时代，将“无限循环”编码为while (true)感觉更自然，对我来说似乎更明显，而不是for (;;)20世纪80年代末与的一次接触以及随后的最佳实践讨论打破了我的这个习惯。此后，我使用for控制语句对循环进行了编码。今天，很长一段时间以来的第一次，也许是我作为一名C#开发人员第一次需要无限循环，我面临着同样的情况。其中一个是正确的，另一个是错误的？

问for (;;)和while (true)哪个是正确的C#无限循环？
EN

回答 15

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问for (;;)和while (true)哪个是正确的C#无限循环？EN

回答 15

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问for (;;)和while (true)哪个是正确的C#无限循环？
EN