Depends on the person. There likely is a correlation on what century you learned programming, but certainly one whether you have experience with pascal-ish languages.

People educated in the Wirth way would say "that's not a for loop; there is no way to tell how often it will iterate when it is first entered" and write it as a while loop.

Old-school C programmers seem to think one iteration construct is enough for everybody and like to write any iteration as a for loop, ideally with a few commas and no actual statements, as in the classic strcpy:

  char *strcpy(char *dst, CONST char *src)
  {
    char *save = dst; 
    for (; (*dst = *src) != '\0'; ++src, ++dst);
    return save;
  }

(from http://www.ethernut.de/api/strcpy_8c_source.html)

Programmers with soe Wirth-style training do at least something like

  char *
  strcpy(char *s1, const char *s2)
  {
    char *s = s1;
    while ((*s++ = *s2++) != 0)
	;
    return (s1);
  }

(from http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-167/gen.sub...)

[If you google, you can find way more variations on this. for example, http://fossies.org/dox/glibc-2.20/string_2strcpy_8c_source.h... does a do {...} while(....) that I am not even sure is legal C; it uses offsets into the source to write into the destination]

From your example I guess you are definitely in the Wirth (Pascalish) camp, beyond even that second state. Classic C programmers would either use 0 and 1 for booleans or #define macros FALSE and TRUE (modern C has true booleans, but that extra #include to get it increases compilation time, so why do it?

I am in te Pascal-ish camp. I like to say C doesn't have a for loop because its 'for' is just syntactic sugar for a while loop.