Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: priorities of = and == revisited Message-ID: <3524@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Jan 88 01:13:00 GMT References: <1175@ark.cs.vu.nl> <3486@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <1988@rti.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 20 In article <1988@rti.UUCP> trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott) writes: >The fact is that C did convert from =OP to OP= without much >hassle, ambiguities notwithstanding. > >It is the fact that the C compiler can warn of hazardous/ambiguous >operator precedences that makes me believe we can change >C precedence (in those few places where it makes sense) >without too much hassle. The =OP to OP= was a syntactic change, while changing the operator precedences would be a SEMANTIC change. Yes, tools can be written to go through and parenthesize code which uses the old precedence, but this is not the point (C programmers can write tools to do anything :-)). The rules make sense as they are now (at least to me); changing them may make sense to you but will be nonsense to many others. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_