[comp.lang.c] Reply: priorities of = and == revisited

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?"