Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!dalcs!garfield!john13
From: john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <4403@garfield.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 88 04:03:12 GMT
References: <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> <2111@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell)
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's
Lines: 30

In article <2111@chinet.UUCP> dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes:
>In article <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> RAY%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Ray Lauff) writes:
>'
>'I do agree that changing the assignment operator to := would be a radical
>'alteration of the language, causing many programs to require changes, but
>
>Actually, you have introduced a bug here -- You are changing comparisons
>("==") to assignments (":=").  

Seems to me that the people who have problems with '=' vs '==' are those who
have not come to terms with the implicit comparison with zero done after
each operation.

I made the = mistake a couple of times very early in the C learning process.
But since I convinced myself that "if (x = fn())" was both a valid and
useful construct, and put it to use in code, the *meaning* of each has become
very apparent so that I use the proper form automatically.

People who find the implicit test for zero distasteful (I get the feeling
many of them never programmed in assembler) may never be comfortable with
'=='. But for people who like it for its conciseness, the chances of using
the wrong symbol due to a typo should be no greater than typing "mian" instead
of "main".

John
-- 
"A Chinese soldier in Tibet who tried to tear off a British woman's Sergeant
 Bilko T-shirt has become the first known case of someone mistaking Phil
 Silvers for the Dalai Lama."
				-- Toronto Globe & Mail, Nov. 14/87