Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site datagen.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!rocky2!datagen!mrm
From: mrm@datagen.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary + and C standardization
Message-ID: <75@datagen.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jul-84 09:58:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: datagen.75
Posted: Tue Jul 17 09:58:28 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 03:33:45 EDT
Organization: Data General Distributed Systems, Westborough, MA
Lines: 8

The reason I heard that Ritchie objected to unary + is that it doesn't give
the programmer any power (except to insure an lvalue is an rvalue).  The
argument for adding unary + was that other languages have it, and it
makes writing a program which translates other languages into C easier.

	Michael Meissner
	Data General Corporation
	...{ ihpn4, rocky2, decvax!ittvax, allegra }!datagen!mrm