Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!greg
From: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary +
Message-ID: <2595@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Apr-86 23:38:44 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.2595
Posted: Sun Apr 20 23:38:44 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Apr-86 10:23:09 EST
References: <2323@brl-smoke.ARPA> <687@bentley.UUCP> <951@dataioDataio.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 13
Summary: 

In article <951@dataioDataio.UUCP> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright writes:
>In article <687@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes:
>>[3]  Someone proposed using "a+(volatile)(b+c)".  I think this is workable,
>... I'm totally against such overloading of
>the meaning of 'volatile'. It makes about as much intuitive sense as:
>	"a+(while)(b+c)"
>which is also easily implementable, but very confusing.

How about "a+(do)(b+c)", or "a+(!break)(b+c)" ? ? ? :-) (-: :-) (-:
-- 
"If you aren't making any mistakes, you aren't doing anything".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith     University of Toronto      UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg