PRECEDENT FOR USE OF =

[rbj%icst-cmr at smoke.UUCP]

	If that's a reasonable principle of programming language design, then
	let's see if we can't get Huffman-coding for C keywords in the next ANSI
	draft standard.

Great! Replace all the keywords by digraphs!
	
	= for assignment is one of many flaws in C syntax.  Combined with the
	absence of a Boolean type, it is a considerable source of errors in C
	code.  Lint should warn the user of every occurrence of "if (a = b)".

0 for three.
	
	(I predict at least one C-worshipper will say "*real* C programmers,
	as opposed to quiche-eaters, don't make that mistake."  I think they're
	wrong, based on the instances of it I've seen. 

Whatever they eat, the mistake is rare (after getting bit a few times),
and easy to find when made.

	Second-order comment
	will be "you haven't done a study, so you're not worth bothering with":

Hey, I can relate to this. If the founding fathers had done a study, we'd
never have had the Bill of Rights. Why poll the common man when you have
a genius to lead the way.

	I admit that I haven't, but (1) I lack the resources, and (2) it's too
	bad the designers of programming languages (and Unix utilities) don't
	have to do human factors studies before introducing their products.)

Human factors are for humans. You are talking to machines. Beep, click, whirr!
	
						James Jones
No, I *don't* want any Kool-Aid!

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell		<rbj at icst-cmr.arpa>
I'm pretending I'm pulling in a TROUT!  Am I doing it correctly??