Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!axiom!drilex!rclex!cdx39!jc
From: jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Re: Multiple assignments
Message-ID: <201@cdx39.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-May-86 10:30:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: cdx39.201
Posted: Fri May 23 10:30:47 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 26-May-86 00:05:10 EDT
References: <1455@mmintl.UUCP> <825@bentley.UUCP> <1482@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 42

[Let's try again and see if readnews can acces the news files this time around.]

> > > then to set both "a" and "b" to zero, one would write "a $ b = 0", 
> > > rather than "a = b = 0", as C does....  

I've always sorta wondered why programming languages never 
seem to use the same sort of comma-based syntax that most
human languages use, e.g.:
	(a, b, c)   = 0;	/* C , PL/I*/
	(a, b, c)  := 0;	/* Pascal */
	SET a, b, c = 0 	/* Basic */
	A, B, C   = 0.0		/* Fortran */
I mean, we're all familiar with this sort of usage from
many years of using it.  In C, it almost made it into
the language, since there is a comma operator.  You just
can't use it in an "lvalue" expression.

Surely there is no problem making a compiler understand
such syntax.  As for why you might want it in C, haven't
you ever been bitten by the "feature" of incompatible 
types in a set-several-things-to-zero command?  Try the
following:
	main() {
		char  *x;
		double y;
		y = x = 0;
	}
and see what your C compiler does.  Silly, isn't it?

(Despite the Cobol fiasco, there are ideas from 
natural languages that could be carried over to 
programming languages. :-)


-- 
	John M Chambers (617-364-2000x7304)

	      / cthulhu	 \	     /usenet
	     /  inmet	  \	    / news
	...!{   harvax	   }!cdx39!{  jc
	     \  mit-eddie /	    \ uucp
	      \ mot[bos] /	     \root