Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!rutgers!clyde!cbosgd!gwspc!cbcsta!n8emr!oink!jep
From: jep@oink.UUCP (James E. Prior)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <215@oink.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 88 17:28:05 GMT
References: <11220@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: jep@oink.UUCP (James E. Prior)
Organization: Random Prime Research Institute  Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 23

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.  

Hardly, you claim to be reducing legibility problems by replacing 
== with =>.  However => would suffer from confusion with the 
structure pointer operator -> and the greater than or equal operator
 >=.

It also isn't intuitive at all.  The > in => would be downright
misleading in implying that the left operand somehow flows to
the right operand.

>Stan Horwitz
>V4039 at TEMPLEVM.BITNET
-- 
Jim Prior    jep@oink.UUCP    {ihnp4|cbosgd}!n8emr!oink!jep
Pseudo-programmers use pseudo-code to write pseudo-programs on pseudo-machines!