Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!jimc
From: jimc@ucla-cs.ARPA (Jim Carter)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Boolean Operators Slighted in C
Message-ID: <12329@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 2-May-86 19:20:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.12329
Posted: Fri May  2 19:20:39 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 07:11:20 EDT
References: <838@ihwpt.UUCP> <778@bentley.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimc@ucla-cs.UUCP (Jim Carter)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 16

In article <778@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes:
>Btw, you can't have *all* operators extended with "=".  How would you write
>"v = v < e;"?  (Not that it's useful.)
I think it's useful!  As written, of course, it's semantically invalid,
but what you really mean is "v <= e" (sic) or, to demonstrate where it's
really useful,
     array[horrendous] [subscript] [list] <= bigexpr;
  rather than 
     if (array[h][s][l] < bigexpr) array[h][s][l] = bigexpr;
Now "<=" already means something else so this syntax is not acceptable.
How about "v < = e" with a mandatory blank?  This is atrocious human
engineering but at least is parseable.  Anybody have any better ideas?
-- 
James F. Carter            (213) 206-1306
UCLA-SEASnet; 2567 Boelter Hall; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024
UUCP:...!{ihnp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!jimc  ARPA:jimc@locus.UCLA.EDU