> On June 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM Albert van der Horst <[email protected]> > wrote: [...] > Sorry, but that means your brain is not wired correctly to recognize > == as the symmetric operation that it is. > Would you be equally fuzzy about > mask = 0x42 & abc; > versus > mask = abc & 0x42; > ?
I'm perfectly clear about == but the problem I am trying to avoid is typing = when I meant == and having the compiler dutifully obey my clear instructions. Rainer says modern compilers issue warning about this (and I have improved my code on several occasions by reacting to gcc's warnings about the precedence of & and | for which the compiler is actually doing what I intended, but it was not quite as clear in the source code). Back in the days, I was bitten multiple times by the == vs. = typo. I learned my lesson. The product of programming is the source code. The executable is a side-effect. > > > > So, program in Algol 60/ Pascal/ Modula/ Oberon or "take your := and > > shove it". The world has moved on. > > Not using := but = instead is one of the biggest mistakes in c. > With Java C++ inheriting it, even Python couldn't get away from it. > With moving on you mean probably that we must accept that this mistake > can never be fixed. I for me don't give up hope. As recently as a year ago I had to use a proprietary robot programming language which used := and I hated it :-) The whole idea of := or assignment in general is suspect. Use a functional programming language like Scheme/LISP, Haskell, or OCAML instead. > Not trying to start a flamewar. Just demonstrating that there is a > different opinion possible regards this. :-) Peter Olson _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
