== vs =

[Ray Dunn]

In article <11523 at brl-adm.ARPA> dsill at NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes:
>Does it make sense to change the language because some people have a
>problem making the abstract <=> real transformation?

Yes.  Otherwise it will eventually be the cause of someone's death, and that
death is avoidable!

To others who suggest defining "EQUALS" etc for "==".  This is not a
solution.  The problem is not with the use of "==", the problem is with the
use of "=".  The solution *has* to involve the "=" operator.  It
unfortunately cannot be solved without breaking existing code - although
only to the extent that syntax errors would be given on existing code by
"new" compilers.

The "best" solution suggested so far was to disallow "=" in the context of
the conditional expression of an if statement, and substitute some other
operator, say ":=" (but not necessarily).

I do not expect any action will be taken in the current standard wars on
this point, it is much too fundamental a problem to be "safely" addressed by
the ANSII committee members.  It is much easier to disappear into
intellectual paroxysms over whether "noalias" actually means "alias" etc.

Ray Dunn.  ..philabs!micomvax!ray