Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cubsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!rna!cubsvax!peters
From: peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: The wonders of C (=/==)
Message-ID: <323@cubsvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 20:27:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cubsvax.323
Posted: Wed Mar 27 20:27:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 00:20:41 EST
References: <9436@brl-tgr.ARPA> <12@rtp47.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin)
Organization: Columbia Univ Biology, New York City
Lines: 19
Summary: 

>> It seems to me that the normally-cited "save keystrokes" reason for
>> the =/== choice cannot be correct...
>
>Wasn't "==" chosen for its obvious analogy to "!=", "<=", and ">=" ?
>That's what I've always assumed, at least.
>

The "save keystrokes"  assumption comes from p17 of K&R: 

	Since assignment is about twice as frequent as equality testing
	in typical C programs, it's appropriate that the operator be
	half as long.

...which I never was tempted to take as anything but a cute little quip,
and perhaps a subtle dig at PASCAL.  In these latter days, it would
no doubt be postpended with a ":-)".

In any case, I apologise for contributing to the discussion.  If the truth
be known, I'm very bored with it by now.