Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C
Message-ID: <3445@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 12:55:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3445
Posted: Fri Jul 20 12:55:02 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 05:55:02 EDT
References: <10732@lanl-a.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 10

My point was that the C feature of not forcing evaluation order
based on parentheses but instead requiring use of separate
statements is not necessarily a "weakness of C".  The reason
you perceive it as such is that your idea of the meaning of
parentheses is borrowed from Fortran.  In this case, I believe
the C language could be changed to adopt the Fortran meaning
for parentheses in expressions, which would occasionally (not
often) be useful.  However, in C as currently defined it is
nevertheless possible to specify evaluation order; you just
can't do it using Fortran ideas.