🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4505@xenna.Encore.COM>, pierson@mist (Dan Pierson) writes:
> In article <9282@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpb (Liber) writes:
> >This really has nothing to do with ":=" vs "=".  C is an
> >expression-based language; Pascal is not (by expression-based I mean
> >that every operator returns a value that can be used as one of the
> >parameters for another operator).
> 
> OK, you get the grumble instead of Peter :-)

Grumble away.

> Since you're defining your own term, I can't flatly say you're wrong,
> BUT this definition of "expression based" contradicts every other
> definition I'm familiar with.

You're right. However I once modified a version of the small-C compiler
to make 'C' a completely expression-based language. The changes are really
very minor (at least for that case... I don't know quite how full 'C'
would take it).

> If C was an expression based language, the ?: expression would be
> totally redundant with a normal if statement (of course it would
> still be more compact).

The small-C I was working with didn't have '?:', one reason I went to
the trouble. The other reason was I'd just read the BCPL book by Colin
Whitby-Strevens. While I was making anonymous integer arrays, I went
over the edge into algol territory.

> If C was an expression based language the following would be legal:
  [ foo = switch(bar) {...} ]

Well, if I'd had a switch statement it would have been.

> This is not fantasy, the equivalent expressions exist and are useful
> in BLISS and Lisp.

And, I believe, Algol.

Anyway, it was loads of fun.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.