Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!codas!karthur
From: karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <1530@codas.att.com>
Date: 12 Jan 88 14:20:02 GMT
References: <11220@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T, Altamonte Springs, FL
Lines: 36

In article <11220@brl-adm.ARPA> V4039%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Stan Horwitz) writes:
> 
>   Yep, I completely agree with Mr. Lauff who offers some legitimate
> rationale for having another symbol in place of "==".  It is not at all
> unusual for symbols such as "=" to be misprinted or just smudged on high
> speed line printers.  Why compound errors by having two such similar
> operators?  I suggest the symbol => in place of ==.  It's such a nice,
> unassuming symbol.  It's inclusion would not cause many problems even
> for those compiling older programs.  As was said, all that is needed to
> convert older programs' use of == to => is a global replace command in
> your editor.  If your program is extremely large, then take a few minutes
> to get a soda while your editor is making the change.  We all need an
> occassional coffee (or soda) break.

The use of "=>" is troublesome to me for two reasons:

	1. It is very similar to the >= operator (not a big deal).

	2. It implies assignment from left to right.  By this, I 
	   mean  "a => b" TO ME looks like assign the value of 'a'
	   to 'b'.

A better operator (I think) is "<-".  It still is similar to other operators
(namely "->" & "<="), but it does imply right to left assignment.

As far as I'm concerned, the Pascal-type ":=" is not a good choice due to
the placement of the ":" and "=" on the keyboard.  The actions required to
make the combination are awkward for most touch typists.

At this late date, though, I'm not sure C will ever change its assignment
operator: too much code has been written.  This kind of change will almost
require a new language.


Kurt Arthur
Software Services of Florida, Inc.