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
Subject: Re: Re: Multiple assignments
Message-ID: <1516@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-May-86 09:38:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1516
Posted: Fri May 30 09:38:38 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jun-86 08:35:01 EDT
References: <1455@mmintl.UUCP> <825@bentley.UUCP> <1482@mmintl.UUCP> <201@cdx39.UUCP> <2846@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 26

In article <2846@utcsri.UUCP> greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes:
>It becomes the same as
>	x = 0;
>	y = x;	/* actually y=(double)x */
>
>Are you suggesting that given (x,y)=0; it will be easier for a compiler
>to detect the incompatibility and generate
>	x = 0;
>	y = 0.0;	????
>I don't really think so.

Yes, because "(x,y)=0;" is equivalent to "x=0; y=0;", unlike "x=y=0", which
as you note is equivalent to "y=0; x=y;".

On the flip side, a naive compiler will generate less efficient code for
something like:

   int i, j;
   float a;
   (i,j)=a;

than it would when the last line is "i=j=a"; it will do the float to int
conversion twice.

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