🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxv2t2.4FH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <id.6S0V.FKH@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> >So you're making the claim that computer language syntax was deliberately
> >introduced to obfuscate or conflict with another field? Is that really
> >what you mean here, or am I putting words in your mouth?

> I have given examples.  Some have even introduced conflicts with previous
> notation in the computer field.  A brief repetition of some of them is in
> order.

> 	The use of | for or. [...]
> 	The use of ^ for exclusive or. [...]
> 	The obfuscation created by using * for indirection, [...]
> 	Similarly for ++ and --.  Also, using & for "address of", [...]

And these were *deliberately introduced to conflict with standard notation*?

> But for a language designer with large backing
> not to check on this is in the nature of criminal negligeance, at least.

These were not introduced by a "language designer with large backing".

C was practically a bootleg project.

Personally, I think that making indirection a prefix operator was a bigger
mistake than any of these.
-- 
Peter da Silva / 77487-5012 USA / +1 713 274 5180
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?