Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!bony1!richieb From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <1991Apr1.213819.14842@bony1.bony.com> Date: 1 Apr 91 21:38:19 GMT References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1991Mar22.120946.1@happy.colorado.edu> <299@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar25.145441.1@happy.colorado.edu> Reply-To: richieb@bony1.UUCP (Richard Bielak) Organization: Bank of New York Lines: 37 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: [...] >>all, I never saw anything even vaguely like "a := a + 1" in any math or >>science course, so I can't believe I had any prior familiarity with it. > >Huh? Did you never see?: > > 7 = 6 + 1 [...] > > W = W + 1 > 2 1 > >I saw stuff like that all the way from elementary school onwards. What I >NEVER saw was: > > P++ Being a math major in college, I was rather confused the first time I saw the expression: A = A + 1; /* PL/I Syntax */ That could only be true, if A were a transfinite number! I mean 2 is not equal to 2 + 1. Anyway, properly written programs should PRECISELY state what they are doing in some agreed upon notation. So, IMHO, a := a + 1 is as good as a++. ...richie -- *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | Richie Bielak (212)-815-3072 | Programs are like baby squirrels. Once | | Internet: richieb@bony.com | you pick one up and handle it, you can't | | Bang: uunet!bony1!richieb | put it back. The mother won't feed it. |