Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!mtxinu!sybase!mate!hamish
From: hamish@mate.sybase.com (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: One more point regarding = and == (more flamage)
Message-ID: <12269@sybase.sybase.com>
Date: 2 Apr 91 21:24:19 GMT
References: <632@taumet.com> <3425@inews.intel.com>
Sender: news@Sybase.COM
Organization: Virtual Solutions Corp, USA
Lines: 34

In article <3425@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@nevin.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>	[...]
>Hey, the real world encroaches.  I simply consider
>
>	/* assign-cum-check */
>	if ( a=b )
>
>more expressive, readable, correct, and professional than
>
>	if ( (a=b) != 0 )
>

Ah, this from a man who flamed me for daring to introduce the notion of
formal semantics into a discussion on compiler writing and formal machine
translation to help sort out a problem he had with C semantics....
Blair dearest - do you still consider your earnest proposal to add the
addition of two pointers to C standards to be correct and
professional?  And your ill-tempered, ignorant and hilariously bad
flamage based on mis-reading and mis-attributing postings? Well, it was
fun while it lasted.

The Real World encroaches.  It's still sorta hard for *this*
long-memoried Pointer Fairy to take you seriously.... In the above
example, your opinion is no more Real World (you worldly thing, you)
than than it was then. As to "professional" - who's kidding who?

Started working on multiplying two pointers together yet? Submitted it
to the Ansi committee? Understood the role of formal semantics in
compiler writing yet?

	Hamish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid           Sybase Inc, 6475 Christie Ave, Emeryville CA 94608 USA
+1 415 596-3917       hamish@sybase.com       ...!{mtxinu,sun}!sybase!hamish