<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [695] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[695] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?695"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<A HREF="688"><IMG SRC="/i-fref.gif" ALT="first in chain"></A>
<A HREF="688"><IMG SRC="/i-pref.gif" ALT="previous in chain"></A>
<A HREF="694"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="696"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-nref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-lref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>Re: assignment operator change, perhaps something else?</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Mar 10 23:56:57 1995
)</H3>
<PRE>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:53:50 -0800
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)

&gt;Perhaps we do not need to change the assignment operator, but rather
&gt;we need to change the equals operator?  By not changing the assignment
&gt;operator it would leave the door open to adding '-=' and '+='...
&gt;Perhaps &lt;&gt; for equal to?...

Interesting idea but &lt;&gt; is not a good idea as it means "not equal" in basic
(literally greater then or less then.)

Its important for operators to have logical consistancy so if w are goign
to address the issue, we should address it all at once.

Actually == DOES have a logical consistancy in C:
        &gt;=  - Greater then or equal to
        &lt;=  - less then or equal to
        ==  - equal to
Though I admit a single = woudl also be reasonably consistant.  On a
persoanl level, I like &lt;- for assignment and = for testing, BUT I still
think utility is best served by sticking to the existiung ANSI C standards.

JK


</PRE>
