Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ggs
From: ggs@ulysses.UUCP (Griff Smith)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Boolean Operators Slighted in C
Message-ID: <1250@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 17:14:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1250
Posted: Mon May  5 17:14:16 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 07:15:02 EDT
References: <838@ihwpt.UUCP> <778@bentley.UUCP> <12329@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 27

> 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! ...
... [ deleted usual arguments for "op-assign" operators ]
> 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

I think the quality of suggestions is degenerating rapidly.  This is a
blatant type clash.  The "op-assign" interpretation of " <= " is
self-contradictory nonsense.  The expression "v < e" has the
(nonexistent) type "boolean", which implies that the destination is
also boolean.  But that implies that you are using a boolean variable
in the " < " relation, which would be nonsense if "bool" were a real
type.

Instead of proposing yet another obfuscation of the language, why don't
we discuss ways that we can simplify and improve the clarity of our
coding style within the confines of the current language.  Better yet;
quit talking, and do something about it.
-- 

Griff Smith	AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill
Phone:		(201) 582-7736
Internet:	ggs@ulysses.uucp
UUCP:		ulysses!ggs  ( {allegra|ihnp4}!ulysses!ggs )