'for' syntax: for (; *ptr; ptr++) ?

@AlphaBeta: if the operations are 'mandatory', how come you can leave all three out?

I'm not sure about the "mandatory" part, but creating a four character define to replace four other characters doesn't make too much sense, other than from a "self-documenting" code standpoint, I suppose...?

Also - maybe "mandatory" means you need to have the sections (ie, "(;;)") - just not anything in them (ok, that's a stretch)...

:wink: