'=' vs '<-' vs '.ne' vs '==' vs ':=' vs '.eq.' vs ...

[gaynor at topaz.UUCP]

[ Viewer discretion is advised.  The following ]
[ material may be found offensive...           ]

Frank Adams (franka at mmintl.UUCP) writes:

> The problem is that "<-" is a legal sequence of operators.  Consider
> "if (x<-1) { ...}".

I never said that I was specifying C operators.  What I posted was a
list of how I PREFER the operators, not necessarily how I have them in
any given language.  I assume that there are textual replacement and
definition mechanisms in C strong enough to allow me to have things
the way I want them.  (I've seen the 'pig' prefix thrown around quit a
bit.)  You see, I know very little C, and, from what I've seen, I
don't like it very much.  However, it IS a powerful algorithmic
language, no doubt.  The operators in question upon which I posted are
are the ones I generally use when writing pseudo.

The main reason I read this newsgroup is not because I like the penny-
ante discussions that are raged on the obscure and system-dependant
features (bugs?) of C.  It just happens that some topics which better
belong in net.lang are discussed here.  As far as languages go, I
think K&R left much to be desired in the overall design of C.

I don't care to be flamed, by the way, for holding an opinion.  Just
to give an indication of where they'll be routed to.  This does not
mean that I'm closed to discussion - just melee.


                         _   /|
                         \`o_O'
                           ( )   Aachk! Phft!   
                            U

Disclaimer: The opinions and/or information and/or code expressed
            here were generated by this characature, stolen from
            Dave Rasmussen, to which I have taken the liberty of
            adding ears.  So don't look to me for a disclaimer!

Silver  {...!topaz!gaynor}

ps I disclaim all the views above for Dave Rasmussen.