[709] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first previous next last

Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: serial.mit.edu.: host not found)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tue Mar 14 03:34:32 1995 )

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 00:27:21 -0800
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)

>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:49:57 -0800
>From: Mailer-Daemon (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
>Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: serial.mit.edu.: host not
>found)
>To: <jeffpk@netcom.com>
>
>The original message was received at Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:42:54 -0800
>from jeffpk@netcom20.netcom.com [192.100.81.133]
>
>   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
><crag@serial.MIT.EDU>  (unrecoverable error)
>
>   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>550 <crag@serial.MIT.EDU>... Host unknown (Name server: serial.mit.edu.: host
>not found)
>
>   ----- Original message follows -----
>Return-Path: <jeffpk@netcom.com>
>Received: from [192.0.2.1] by netcom20.netcom.com (8.6.10/Netcom)
>        id AAA12413; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:42:54 -0800
>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:42:54 -0800
>Message-Id: <199503130842.AAA12413@netcom20.netcom.com>
>X-Sender: jeffpk@netcom20.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: crag@serial.MIT.EDU (Robert de Forest )
>From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
>Subject: Re: assignment clarification
>
>Okay, My votes.
>
>>>
>>I think many readers were aware of what I was proposing but best to explain. I
>> believe I mentioned that I have already made the change. I have a working
>> server running at sensemedia.net:6666 for those who wish to see what such
>> a beast would feel like, or who don't believe it's possible or whatever. In
>> this version the operator is '='.
>>
>>Having said the above it seems we now have at four questions.
>>
>>Should there be an assignment statement? (no, an assignment expression
>> is sufficient since expr; is a statement).
>
>I concurr that there should NOT be two different assignment operators.
>
>>
>>If there is an assignemnt statement what should it be? (=, :=, but I still
>> still don't want one.)
>
>There shouldnt be one.
>
>>
>>Should there be an assignment expression? (yes, if you don't want one write
>> lint--).
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>>What should the assignment expression operator be? ('<-')
>>
>
>
>=.  Not that I think its the best idea in a vaccum, but I don't think
>anything else is reasonable in a language vased on C that hopes to be
>accessible to the largest numebr of users.  (See my suggested 3 rules for
>compatability already posted.)
>
>JK
>
>
>
>