🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <:1=4K26@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <3989@rtifs1.UUCP> trt@rti.rti.org (Thomas Truscott) writes:
> > I like the Q and PL/M features, but they don't stop me from typing:
> > 	a == b + 1;	/* OOPS, I mean't to assign to a */
> PL/M will. A naked expression is not a legal PL/M statement.

It's legal in Q, but the compiler gives you a warning. That's the
biggest advantage of having both := and = for assignment: the compiler
can reasonably check that every value is used, without special-casing
equality the way C compilers do.

> > 	if (a := b) ..	/* OOPS, I only wanted to compare them */
> I think that is only legal is a and b are booleans.

This is legal in Q, but again the compiler gives you a warning.

> If I was god and got to fix C, I'd make the indirection operator postfix
> before playing with assignment and equality.

Right now, Q accepts both *p/&x and p^/x@. The macro processor should
end up powerful enough to eliminate two of the four from the base
language.

---Dan