Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!uupsi!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus!s64421 From: s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: One more point regarding = and == (more flamage) Message-ID: Date: 28 Mar 91 15:46:55 GMT References: <13603@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Mar22.173037.26641@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Mar27.184833.7914@sq.sq.com> Lines: 23 dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen) writes: >I agree with the principle, but I disagree that it applies here. The >programmer must balance clarity-by-standard-idiom and clarity-by-explicitness. >From K&R1 (p. 101): > ... > while (*s++ = *t++) > ... >"Although this may seem cryptic at first sight, the notational convenience >is considerable, and the idiom should be mastered, if for no other reason >than that you will see it frequently in C programs." Of course, K&R are not infallible. Let's argue on logic and evidence rather than on quotes from AUTHORITY. -- Regards, Ron House. (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)