Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!johnm
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <11118@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 14 Feb 91 07:52:48 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <15184@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 17

In article <15184@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell) writes:
[....]
>My comment was going to be that it sucked bigtime.  However, I'll
>buy "ugh" as a suitable comment too.

I decided that sucked s#!t was too harsh.  :-)

>- P.S.	No wonder people complain about the denseness of C code!
>C code has nothing to do with it, more like the density of some coders.

Well, a lot of people (wrongly) criticize the *language* when it's really
the (your flame here) coder that makes the source code atrocious.  I mean,
we're not talking about entries for the obfuscated C code contest!

----	John D. Mitchell
	johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU