🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6082@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
>In article <113@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca> clh@tacitus.UUCP (Chris Hermansen) writes:
>>In article <6054@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
>>>I personally would like to see the left arrow back. It makes more sense
>>>...
>>What does
>>	i<-37
>>mean, given this symbology; "i becomes 37" or "i lessthan -37"?
>
>Well, in languages that don't allow embedded assignments operations, there
>is no syntactic conflict. As a statement it would be the former and as an
>...
>equals. Maybe we should use "i setq 37". :-)
>

"i setq 37" indeed!  Why not "37 gozinta i"?

Our C programming friends out there, who enjoy the `freedom' that an
expression-oriented language provides, would certainly disapprove of this
type of reasoning for using a language that does not treat assignment
thingies as full-fledged expressions.  Remember the notes scattered around
various U**X manuals about the old "=-" operator (ie what is a=-b?);
the `fix' here was to change the operator to "-=", and all the other
`x-and-becomes' operators similarly.

We more serious types (all 373 of us) that still think Algol 68 was the
supreme being's gift to programming languages would doubtless be horrified
by perverting an expression such as
	y:=(x<-45 'or x>45|sin|cos)(x)
to
	y<-(x<-45 'or x>45|sin|cos)(x)
even though one ought to be able to define an operator to do it |-*


Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
uunet!ubc-cs!van-bc!tacitus!clh         V5Z 1E5