Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: condition convention 'if (10 == j)...'
Message-ID: <112@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 15:21:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.112
Posted: Thu May  2 15:21:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 03:56:48 EDT
References: <brl-tgr.9509> <137@bocklin.UUCP> <1456@amdahl.UUCP> <2140@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 19

This argument looks like the kind of nonsense one hears when infix versus 
postfix notation is discussed. Like when in high school, everyone has a
Texas Instruments calculator, and the rich kid in the class brings in a 
Hewlett-Packard for the first time. You get to hear such delightful garbage as:

	'But Reverse Polish isn't NATURAL !!'

similarly with

	'But  "if( 10 == j )"  isn't NATURAL !!'

Come on, folks, surely we are not mindless drones, afraid to think for our
supper ?  The (10==j) idiom is an effective error-catching heuristic, and
its inventor should be viewed with admiration. Anyone who seriously has 
trouble with this minor variation shouldn't be in this business, or should
at least take a more professional attitude.

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw
University of Waterloo