Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question of style
Message-ID: <11740@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 5 Dec 89 05:37:43 GMT
References: <547@mars.Morgan.COM> <1989Nov30.001947.14883@aqdata.uucp> <427@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG> <565@s5.Morgan.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <565@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:
-I would like to elaborate: There are no good excuses for the comma
-operator because it masquerades as true concurrent assignment where
-it is a poor relation of it.

No such thing.  C's comma operator is specifically sequential,
not even remotely concurrent.

It has uses primarily in macros, occasionally in conditionals.

-... I am preparing a long
-treatment of this issue for posting in this newsgroup but I won't
-post it until it shrinks considerably, so for now I'll just divulge
-my provisional title: 'For construct considered harmful in C'.

How about entitling it "Pascal-think inappropriate for C".