Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Boolean Operators Slighted in C
Message-ID: <1419@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 16:17:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1419
Posted: Tue May  6 16:17:25 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 10-May-86 13:23:13 EDT
References: <838@ihwpt.UUCP> <778@bentley.UUCP> <12329@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 17

In article <12329@ucla-cs.ARPA> jimc@ucla-cs.UUCP (Jim Carter) writes:
>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?

What you talking about isn't "<=".  It's "\/=" (to use a notation which
showed up here recently).  I.e., v = min(v,e), not v = v < e.  The latter
really is pretty useless.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108