[695] in Coldmud discussion meeting

Re: assignment operator change, perhaps something else?

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Mar 10 23:56:57 1995 )

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:53:50 -0800
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)

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

Interesting idea but <> 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:
        >=  - Greater then or equal to
        <=  - less then or equal to
        ==  - equal to
Though I admit a single = woudl also be reasonably consistant.  On a
persoanl level, I like <- for assignment and = for testing, BUT I still
think utility is best served by sticking to the existiung ANSI C standards.

JK