Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: One more point regarding = and == (more flamage)
Message-ID: <15550@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 22 Mar 91 21:30:09 GMT
References: <13603@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <13603@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
>I have one more thing to say to the self-styled C gods who approve of
>simple assignments as an implicit test against zero inside an if-statment.

If that was intended as criticism of me in particular, all I can say
about it is that one should understand the gods before criticizing them.

>b)	while ((*foo++ = *bar++) != 0)

That's in fact the way I would code this particular case, which I
consider a "straw man".  On the other hand, I frequently write code such as:
	bool	status;
	...
	if ( status = WriteHeader() )
		...
	else
		...
	return status;
for which I would be extremely annoyed to receive gratuitous warnings from
the compiler!