Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!think!husc6!psuvax1!gondor.cs.psu.edu!schmidt
From: schmidt@gondor.cs.psu.edu (David E. Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <3295@psuvax1.psu.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 88 18:36:49 GMT
References: <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> <2111@chinet.UUCP> <4403@garfield.UUCP> <891@micomvax.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@psuvax1.psu.edu
Reply-To: schmidt@gondor.cs.psu.edu (David E. Schmidt)
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 12

In article <891@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>It *IS* a problem, and its resolution belongs in the hands of the "keepers
>of the language" (currently the Ansi committee).  It is their responsibility
>to address the problem.  It is their responsibility to find a solution other
>than saying "you shouldn't do it"!

Obviously the meaning of "=" can't be changed, but why couldn't the dpANS
committee list the operator ":=" as a common extension, where ":=" is in
all ways equivalent to "="?  (Although it may be preferable to have the
result of the assignment be of type void -- I haven't thought about
it that much.)  Granted it's not the best to have two operators doing the
same thing, but it's no fuglier than people defining EQ to ==.