Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:31793 alt.lang.cfutures:83
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.lang.cfutures
Subject: Re: Assignment in test: OK?
Message-ID: <28433:Sep1221:22:4890@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 90 21:22:48 GMT
References: <BURLEY.90Sep6024459@world.std.com> <928@hls0.hls.oz> <18326@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au>
Followup-To: alt.lang.cfutures
Organization: IR
Lines: 17

In article <18326@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> jeremy@sinope.socs.uts.edu.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge) writes:
> >> BTW, if I ever write a new C-like language, ":=" will be the assignment
> >> operator, "==" the comparison operator, and "=" totally invalid!  Although
> If you are going to prevent assignment in a conditional, you are preventing
> it from being an expression.  This stops things like "a=b=c=0;" from falling
> out elegantly.

Q has == for comparison, = for assignment with no value, and := for
assignment with a value. (Among others.) So ``a = b'' still works,
``if (a = b)'' is illegal, and the compiler can check all statements
for unused values. The only correct code that has to be rewritten is
``a = b = c = d'' (as ``a = b := c := d'') and a proper ``if (a = b)''
(as ``if (a := b)'').

Followups to alt.lang.cfutures.

---Dan