Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker!mintaka!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Assignment in test: OK?
Message-ID: <18063@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 19 Sep 90 00:30:07 GMT
References: <1990Sep12.194753.9808@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> <3749@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1990Sep13.230805.19720@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> <14316:Sep1511:00:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Sep17.220836.11501@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: karl@kelp.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 9

I suppose that using `:=' would resolve% the problem, in much the same way
that the key-jamming problem was resolved by inventing the pessimal QWERTY.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@kelp.ima.isc.com or ima!kelp!karl), The Walking Lint
________
% I can hardly call it a `fix'.  For me, typing `=' for `==' is no more likely
  than typing `==' for `=' (which I *have* done at least once), and the cure
  would be worse than the disease.  `:=' is almost as clumsy to type as that
  stupid regexp notation `\( \)'.