One more point regarding = and == (more flamage)

[house ron]

dak at sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen) writes:


>I agree with the principle, but I disagree that it applies here.  The 
>programmer must balance clarity-by-standard-idiom and clarity-by-explicitness.

>From K&R1 (p. 101):
>        ...
>        while (*s++ = *t++)
>        ...

>"Although this may seem cryptic at first sight, the notational convenience
>is considerable, and the idiom should be mastered, if for no other reason
>than that you will see it frequently in C programs."

Of course, K&R are not infallible.  Let's argue on logic and evidence
rather than on quotes from AUTHORITY.

--
Regards,

Ron House.   (s64421 at zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)