Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!zodiac!sun-oil!rlee
From: rlee@sun-oil.ads.com (Richard Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: History of := (was: == vs =)
Message-ID: <2291@zodiac.UUCP>
Date: 10 Feb 88 18:17:30 GMT
References: <2337@haddock.ISC.COM> <51300003@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <715@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <3921@aw.sei.cmu.edu> <1448@sugar.UUCP>
Sender: news@zodiac.UUCP
Reply-To: rlee@ads.com (Richard Lee)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 941-3912
Lines: 20

In article <1448@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
=In article <3921@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
=> This
=> is because the designers of Algol-60 had the good sense to make it a
=> statement language.
=
=a) Why does this show good sense?
=
=b) If I'm not mixing my Algol and PL/1 here, doesn't Algol allow:
=
=	a := if b then c else d;
=
=?


According to the _Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60_
(CACM Jan 63), Algol 60 does allow statements of that form.  It is still
considered a "statement language".

One has to be careful when discussing "Algol", since there is an Algol
60 and an Algol 68, and they have dramatic differences.