Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <166@ateng.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 15:47:33 GMT
References: <626@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <214@oink.UUCP> <2681@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 24

In article <2681@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>I would then introduce a new operator, perhaps :=, for the relatively
>rare assignment where the result is used.
>
>In other words, the type of an expression whose main operator is = is void.

This idea is similar to Intel's PL/M (specifically, PL/M-86):

 Symbol     Use                     Example
 ------     -------------------     -------------------------------------
   =        assignment              FOO = BAR;
   =        equality                IF FOO = BAR THEN CALL BARF(1);
   :=       imbedded assignment     IF (FOO := BAR) = XYZZY THEN CALL BARF(2);

Personally, I dislike PL/M's choice of symbols, which makes imbedded
assignment look like a bag off the side of the language -- which, in this
case, it is.

But maybe ANSI will buy it now that you can show prior art.  :-)
-- 
Chip Salzenberg                 UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip"
A T Engineering                 My employer's opinions are a trade secret.
       "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."