Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!homxb!genesis!hotlr!dkc
From: dkc@hotlr.ATT (Dave Cornutt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: == vs =
Message-ID: <226@hotlr.ATT>
Date: 1 Apr 88 21:59:45 GMT
References: <11216@brl-adm.ARPA> <2111@chinet.UUCP> <4403@garfield.UUCP> <931@micomvax.UUCP> <1011@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <956@micomvax.UUCP> <1390@eneevax.UUCP> <2794@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dkc@hotlr.UUCP (Dave Cornutt)
Organization: Not much, but I'm working on it
Lines: 26

In article <2794@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
 > In article <1390@eneevax.UUCP> noise@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Johnson Noise) writes:
 > >	I'm curious, is there anyone other than Ray Dunn that does
 > >not like = and == ?
 > I want to keep = and == with almost exactly the same syntax as they have
 > now.  The only difference is that = does not have as its value the result of
 > the assignment; instead its value is void.  A new operator, perhaps :=,
 > should be introduced, which has exactly the definition that = has now.

The only problem that I have with this is that multiple assignments, such as

a=b=c=d=e=f=g=0

would become:

a:=b:=c:=d:=e:=f:=g:=0

which is harder to type, and somehow not pleasing to my eye.  I'm not sure if
I'd want to make this change to C.  D is another matter; catching the
accidental misapplication of "=" in "if" statements would be worth it.

-- 
Dave Cornutt, AT&T Bell Labs (rm 4A406,x1088), Holmdel, NJ
UUCP:{ihnp4,allegra,cbosgd}!hotly!dkc
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my employer's, not
necessarily mine, and probably not necessary"