maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) (01/20/88)
First of all, thanks to Amos Shapir, Thomas Truscott, James E. Prior and possible other (future) respondents, for their replies. Allright, maybe I was a bit hasty in putting aside the 'backward compatibility' argument. Further, it's generally good to give assignment low priority, I guess. But on the other hand, as Tom Truscott mentioned, "C converted from x =OP y to x OP= y without too much hassle", so why not enhancing the language further ? Perhaps it's the time for ... *D*, the language with all the goodies of C ! Cheers. -- Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies |Maarten Litmaath @ Free U Amsterdam: like an orange. (seen elsewhere) |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!ark!maart
kers@otter.hple.hp.com (Christopher Dollin) (01/29/88)
"nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM 00704a-Liber at AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville" says > The =OP to OP= was a syntactic change, while changing the operator > precedences would be a SEMANTIC change. Nope. It's syntactic. All precedences do is allow you to omit grouping marks (parens). Grouping is just syntactic. Changing the operator MEANINGS would be semantic ............................ Regards, Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?"