== vs =

[David E. Schmidt]

In article <891 at micomvax.UUCP> ray at micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>It *IS* a problem, and its resolution belongs in the hands of the "keepers
>of the language" (currently the Ansi committee).  It is their responsibility
>to address the problem.  It is their responsibility to find a solution other
>than saying "you shouldn't do it"!

Obviously the meaning of "=" can't be changed, but why couldn't the dpANS
committee list the operator ":=" as a common extension, where ":=" is in
all ways equivalent to "="?  (Although it may be preferable to have the
result of the assignment be of type void -- I haven't thought about
it that much.)  Granted it's not the best to have two operators doing the
same thing, but it's no fuglier than people defining EQ to ==.