[445] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: assignment, while (etc)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Sep 23 18:35:34 1994 )

From: BRANDON@cc.usu.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 16:06:45 -0600 (MDT)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU

< Original quote by Colin McCormack:
<> It strikes me that one of C--'s features is its similarity to C++.
<> Hence, assignment `=' (should be an expression)
<>        equality `==' (if you can't tell the difference, learn to program)
<>        while (abomination) { abomination } (abomination) - syntax sucks rocks.
< If nothing else, I share the same attitude.  It doesn't quite make sense
< to take a language called C-- and make it like pascal, or worse, add a
< weird conditional structure.  If anything, C-- should mimic C and C++.

I'm sorry, but that opinion is extremely repulsive.  Why should it mimic C and
C++?  Because _YOU_ think it should?  Ditto goes for Colin.  Colin: if you
can't tell the reason why we are thinking about changing this, perhaps you
should learn to be more open minded.

Changing the assignment operator from '=' to ':=' in no   way makes it
pascal.  If you think it does go back and relearn pascal.  Wake up and smell
the roses.  However, it DOES improve the language dramatically--especially for
the beginning learning curve.  One thing which ALWAYS throws people in relation
to learning C is the '=' and '==' difference.

< The nice thing about staying inside those bounds is that C-- and ColdMud
< in general have an added benefit of serving instructional purposes with
< the language and environment.  It's hard as hell trying to show LPC or
< worse, TinyMUSH or MUCK or MUSE code to an admin and say that what you
< are doing on his machine will be instructional.  Show him you're C--
< code, and he'll look over it and it's possible he'll understand it.

This has no relation to the current subject, which is A: changing the
assignment operator from '=' to ':=' in order to cause less confusion (NOT to
make it closer to pascal--that is the silliest idea I've ever seen Colin come
up with), and to B: Change how the while loop functions.  However, if option A
goes forward--it would lessen the confusion of assignments as expressions
causing the need for option B to disappear (which would be a good thing, in my
opinion :)

ColdC (aka C-- (Greg's) is not C, nor is it C++).