Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site elsie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!elsie!ado
From: ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: if (legitimate(+a)) legitimate(a^^b);
Message-ID: <4069@elsie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 10:44:48 EST
Article-I.D.: elsie.4069
Posted: Wed Nov 21 10:44:48 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Nov-84 07:47:50 EST
References: <352@digi-g.UUCP>, <1442@pucc-h>, <374@petsd.UUCP> <1799@burdvax.UUCP>
Organization: NIH-LEC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 15

It seems to me that the proposal to legitimize
	a ^^ b
is of the same ilk as the proposal to legitimize unary '+'.
Both are, strictly speaking, "unnecessary;"
both serve to "fill out" the family of operators supported by C,
which may make a programmer's job easier--
there being fewer "exceptions" to remember.

If I had my wish, the standards committee would accept both proposals or accept
neither proposal.  ("!(a^^b)", if you will.  :-))

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who favors unary '+' and opposes "^^".
--
	..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado			(301) 496-5688
	DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks