Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: Precedent for use of =
Message-ID: <2323@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 01:20:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2323
Posted: Thu Jul 10 01:20:21 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 06:36:59 EDT
References: <4824@sun.uucp> <499@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 36

Dave Haynie writes:

>> Personally, I still prefer := for assignment and = for equality over =
>> and ==.  I also think that the keystroke argument is ridiculous.  The
>> problem with = and == is further aggravated by the fact that in C an
>> assignment is an expression and not a statement, so that code like

>>   if (i = 0) {
>>     /* do something */
>>   }
>>   else {
>>     /* do something else */
>>   }

>> is legal C and usually  /* does something else */   than you expected  :-)

>As long as you're writing in C, and you REALLY know the language, the above
>construct would be ridiculous.  I think that most of the folks that are
>unhappy with the way that C handles = and == are frustrated Pascal hackers
>who can't quite adjust to the power and terseness of C.  Maybe if they'd
>spend a few extra hours LEARNING C instead of trying to write Pascal in C,
>they'd be much better off.[...]  My point is instead of 
>tripping over the language syntax and screaming how it should be changed,
>one can learn the language and then not have to worry about tripping over 
>it.  And then you might even start to realize why a particular method has 
>its advantages.

Unfortunately, it's that kind of attitude that leads to the perpetuation of
bad language constructs.

C's handling of assignment and equality is a problem: it is error-prone.
What's worse is that one often sees code like "if (a=b)" done on purpose--
yet another example on how the "power and terseness" of C leads to
obfuscation.

C. Wingate