Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Precedent for use of =
Message-ID: <2110@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Jun-86 03:10:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2110
Posted: Sat Jun 21 03:10:24 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 04:25:30 EDT
References: <115@mruxe.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 34

In article <115@mruxe.UUCP> cgw@mruxe.UUCP (C Waldman) writes:
[Mathematical use of the symbol `=' includes three meanings:
test for equality, assignment of equality, and assertion of
equality.]
>[When programming] we are interested in telling the computer
>to DO something: therefore we are interested in [the first two]
>meanings....  We need two symbols to avoid ambiguity.

Fine so far; I think everyone agrees on this (with the exception
mentioned in some of the unquoted text of theorem-proving languages).

>... If anything, maybe I would agree with a different symbol for
>[the first] meaning..., like ?= or =? or something, but it's not
>worth making a change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Here is where you will, with some, `run into a brick wall' (as they
never did say in Bree).  Some will claim that it *is* broken,
because people do at times write

	if (var = expr) ...

when they in fact meant

	if (var == expr) ...

As for myself, I believe that anyone can do bad things in any
language (includin' English like I's a-doin' right here now right
before your very own eyes doncha know :-) ), and that the proper
measure of a language is not how difficult it makes writing bad
code, but rather how easy it makes writing good code.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu