Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #12065 > unrolled thread

John McCarthy died today.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 +0000
    Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 01:27 -0700
    Re: John McCarthy died today. Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-25 09:27 +0000
    Re: John McCarthy died today. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-25 11:27 +0100
    Re: John McCarthy died today. Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-10-29 13:33 -0400
      Re: John McCarthy died today. Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-10-29 17:51 +0000
        Re: John McCarthy died today. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 21:28 +0300
        Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-29 11:57 -0700
          Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 08:20 -0700
        Re: John McCarthy died today. Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-11-04 05:20 -0400
          Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-04 15:53 +0000
            Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-04 12:16 -0400
              Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-04 17:58 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-04 20:49 -0400
                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-05 01:55 +0000
                    Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-07 10:54 +0000
                      Re: John McCarthy died today. "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-11-07 07:36 -0600
                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-07 19:49 +0000
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-07 15:49 -0500
                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-08 00:38 -0800
                            Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-08 07:05 -0500
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-11-08 09:12 -0500
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-08 16:48 +0000
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-08 12:12 -0500
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-08 23:27 +0000
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-08 14:10 -0800
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-08 17:16 -0500
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-11-09 13:51 -0500
                                  Re: Looping Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-11-09 19:21 -0700
                                    Re: Looping Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-10 02:34 +0000
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-08 17:49 -0500
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-08 16:35 -0800
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-09 01:08 -0500
                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 01:26 -0800
                                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-09 08:18 -0500
                                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 05:32 -0800
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 01:24 -0800
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Quentin Carbonneaux <qcarbonn@invalid.com> - 2011-11-09 11:59 +0000
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 05:34 -0800
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-08 18:31 +0200
                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-07 14:06 -0800
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-08 02:01 +0000
                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-07 23:16 -0800
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-08 05:18 +0000
                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-07 23:17 -0800
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-08 01:46 -0800
                          Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-08 13:02 +0000
                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-08 14:19 -0800
                            Re: John McCarthy died today. Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 22:23 +0000
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-08 18:13 -0500
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-08 23:38 +0000
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-08 23:18 +0000
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-10 12:40 +0200
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 11:39 +0000
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-10 12:23 +0000
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-10 05:38 -0800
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-10 17:29 +0200
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
                              Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-08 16:34 -0800
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 01:37 -0800
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-09 13:25 -0800
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-10 10:36 +1300
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 23:47 -0800
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-10 00:21 -0800
                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 03:04 -0800
                                        Re: John McCarthy died today. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-11-10 15:20 +0000
                                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-12 23:22 +0000
                                            Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-13 01:44 +0000
                                              Re: John McCarthy died today. "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-11-13 04:18 -0600
                                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-13 16:57 +0000
                                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-13 11:59 -0600
                                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-11-13 18:54 +0000
                                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-13 14:47 -0800
                                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-14 03:43 +0000
                                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-14 09:00 +0000
                                                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-14 18:30 +0000
                                                          Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-14 14:44 -0500
                                                          Re: John McCarthy died today. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-14 20:13 +0000
                                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 00:21 -0800
                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi> - 2011-11-10 15:26 +0000
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-10 01:51 +0000
                                Re: John McCarthy died today. Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2011-11-09 17:15 +0000
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-09 18:04 +0000
                                    Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-09 13:31 -0800
                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-09 15:53 -0600
                                      Re: John McCarthy died today. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-09 22:02 +0000
                                        Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-09 14:14 -0800
                                  Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-09 13:50 -0800
                        Re: John McCarthy died today. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-08 07:10 -0500
            Re: John McCarthy died today. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-04 14:51 -0700

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#12065 — John McCarthy died today.

He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
with dumb syntax:

  (if cond then else)   ->    cond ? then : else

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12076

On Oct 25, 1:44 am, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:

> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> with dumb syntax:
>
>   (if cond then else)   ->    cond ? then : else

seems to be a bad month for progammers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12077

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:44:13 +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his
> inventions with dumb syntax:
> 
>   (if cond then else)   ->    cond ? then : else

Requiescat in Pace.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 _____________________________
< I want a WESSON OIL lease!! >
 -----------------------------
  \
   \
       ___  
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()   
     (_)-(_)   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12080

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:

> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> with dumb syntax:
>
>   (if cond then else)   ->    cond ? then : else

How quickly people forget!  Originally (cond (c then) (t else)).  John
McCarthy might well have considered (if ...) to be a perversion of his
invention!

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12249

On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> with dumb syntax:
>
>    (if cond then else)   ->     cond ? then : else

Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used 
on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in 
particular, of const objects.
--
Ark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12250

Ark wrote:
) On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
)> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
)> with dumb syntax:
)>
)>    (if cond then else)   ->     cond ? then : else
)
) Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
) The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used 
) on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in 
) particular, of const objects.

 (if cond then else)  is *also* an expression with type and value, stupid.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12255

Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes:
> Ark wrote:
> ) On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> )> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> )> with dumb syntax:
> )>
> )>    (if cond then else)   ->     cond ? then : else
> )
> ) Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
> ) The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used 
> ) on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in 
> ) particular, of const objects.
> 
>  (if cond then else)  is *also* an expression with type and value, stupid.

I'm not sure I see anything by Ark that contradicts that, in particular as he
says precisely nothing about the lisp form.

Phil
-- 
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
-- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12258

Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes:
> Ark wrote:
> ) On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> )> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> )> with dumb syntax:
> )>
> )>    (if cond then else)   ->     cond ? then : else
> )
> ) Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
> ) The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used 
> ) on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in 
> ) particular, of const objects.
>
>  (if cond then else)  is *also* an expression with type and value, stupid.

Perhaps you could express technical disagreements without calling
people stupid -- especially in a thread about the death of a
programming language pioneer.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12294

On Oct 29, 6:57 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> writes:
> > Ark wrote:
> > ) On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > )> He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> > )> with dumb syntax:
> > )>
> > )>    (if cond then else)   ->     cond ? then : else
> > )
> > ) Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
> > ) The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used
> > ) on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in
> > ) particular, of const objects.
>
> >  (if cond then else)  is *also* an expression with type and value, stupid.
>
> Perhaps you could express technical disagreements without calling
> people stupid -- especially in a thread about the death of a
> programming language pioneer.

"dumb syntax" wasn'texactly a good start

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12667

On 10/29/2011 1:51 PM, Willem wrote:
> Ark wrote:
> ) On 10/24/2011 8:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> )>  He must have been waiting to outlive someone who perverted his inventions
> )>  with dumb syntax:
> )>
> )>     (if cond then else)   ->      cond ? then : else
> )
> ) Re dumb syntax - in the eye of the beholder.
> ) The ternary syntax is an /expression/ with type and value and, when used
> ) on (symbolic) constants is indispensable in static initialization, in
> ) particular, of const objects.
>
>   (if cond then else)  is *also* an expression with type and value, stupid.
>
>
> SaSW, Willem

A distinction between expression and type-and-value-less statement is a 
Good Thing, perhaps contrary to what purists might say. The fact that in 
C (and descendants) the assignment operator is an expression is indeed 
unfortunate and has lead to innumerable bugs stemming from clever 
coding. So there, smart Willem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12687

On 2011-11-04, Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> wrote:
> The fact that in 
> C (and descendants) the assignment operator is an expression is indeed 
> unfortunate and has lead to innumerable bugs stemming from clever 
> coding. 

This is the consequence of how the operator is spelled, not what kind
of expression it is. Doh!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12692

On 11/04/2011 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2011-11-04, Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> wrote:
>> The fact that in 
>> C (and descendants) the assignment operator is an expression is indeed 
>> unfortunate and has lead to innumerable bugs stemming from clever 
>> coding. 
> 
> This is the consequence of how the operator is spelled, not what kind
> of expression it is. Doh!

I thought it was a consequence of the grammar, not the spelling of the
operator. The problem is due entirely to the fact that there is such a
thing in C as an expression that performs assignment, while C has no
such thing as an assignment statement - the closest it comes is an
expression-statement where the relevant expression is an assignment
expression. Those facts are completely independent of the spelling of
the assignment operator.

What alternative spelling for the assignment operator are you
suggesting, that could, without a change to any of the features of the
grammar that I described above, avoid this problem?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12705

On 2011-11-04, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2011-11-04, Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> wrote:
>>> The fact that in 
>>> C (and descendants) the assignment operator is an expression is indeed 
>>> unfortunate and has lead to innumerable bugs stemming from clever 
>>> coding. 
>> 
>> This is the consequence of how the operator is spelled, not what kind
>> of expression it is. Doh!
>
> I thought it was a consequence of the grammar, not the spelling of the
> operator. The problem is due entirely to the fact that there is such a
> thing in C as an expression that performs assignment, while C has no
> such thing as an assignment statement - the closest it comes is an
> expression-statement where the relevant expression is an assignment
> expression. Those facts are completely independent of the spelling of
> the assignment operator.

Which problem?

I'm thinking of  accidental assignments:

  if (defence_condition = UNDER_NUCLEAR_ATTACK)
    launch_full_counterstrike();

This problem is caused by the similarity of == and =, but, sure, it would also
go away if you couldn't have an assignment in that context.

Other languages have assignment expressions, but programmers don't make these
mistakes.
  
  ;; Lisp

  ;; actually wanted EQ, but wrote SETF? Vanishingly unlikely.

  (when (setf defence-condition :under-nuclear-attack) ...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12746

On 11/04/2011 01:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
...
> Which problem?
> 
> I'm thinking of  accidental assignments:
> 
>   if (defence_condition = UNDER_NUCLEAR_ATTACK)
>     launch_full_counterstrike();
> 
> This problem is caused by the similarity of == and =, but, sure, it would also
> go away if you couldn't have an assignment in that context.

And my point is that's the superior solution. Making an assignment an
expression that has a value which can be used in other expressions is a
feature that's seldom taken advantage of, has little to recommend it,
and is frequently misused. The language would be cleaner without it. I
don't feel strongly enough about this point to recommend removing this
feature from any of the several well-established languages that already
has it, but I would recommend not copying that feature in any new languages.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12750

On 2011-11-05, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 01:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> ...
>> Which problem?
>> 
>> I'm thinking of  accidental assignments:
>> 
>>   if (defence_condition = UNDER_NUCLEAR_ATTACK)
>>     launch_full_counterstrike();
>> 
>> This problem is caused by the similarity of == and =, but, sure, it would also
>> go away if you couldn't have an assignment in that context.
>
> And my point is that's the superior solution. 

You have to make up your mind what the root cause is of the
=/== mixup bugs. Is it:

a) similarity between = and ==

b) expressions that can contain side effects?

If you say b, but then you redesign the language by only eliminating the plain
assignment operator from expressions, while continuing to allow expressions to
use operators like &= and ++, and to call functions that have side effects,
that is inconsistent with your point! You're then admitting that the side
effects are not really the root cause, just the assignment operator
specifically.

If you believe b) you can make an imperative language in which expressions are
purely functional: no side effects, and calls to pure functions only, not to
procedures.

But it remains that it's the similarity between = and == that leads to
the programming mistake.  The programmer did not make some mistake in
the destructive manipulation of data; he didn't even want the expression
to be destructive, but only misspelled the darn operator!

How will you protect the programmer from misspelling one non-destructive
operator for another in a pure expression?

What programming language butchery do you recommend for the situation
when - is written instead of +?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12839

"Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote in message
news:20111104214808.434@kylheku.com...

> But it remains that it's the similarity between = and == that leads to
> the programming mistake.  The programmer did not make some mistake in
> the destructive manipulation of data; he didn't even want the expression
> to be destructive, but only misspelled the darn operator!
>
> How will you protect the programmer from misspelling one non-destructive
> operator for another in a pure expression?
>
> What programming language butchery do you recommend for the situation
> when - is written instead of +?

"-" isn't generally used, in a million other contexts outside of the
language, to mean "+".

In everyday life, "=" *does* usually mean "equals".

So the mistake is simply more likely.

So things can be done about it, such as only allowing (a=b) to return a 
value  when used on the rhs of another assignment. Or requiring an explicit 
operator to extract the value of (a=b). It would be a dramatic change to the 
language, but it will never be done because opponents will insist that 
anyone who gets = and == mixed up is just a lousy programmer and should be 
looking for a simpler occupation.

-- 
bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12843

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:j98dee$fmo$1@dont-email.me...
> "Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote in message
> news:20111104214808.434@kylheku.com...
>
>> But it remains that it's the similarity between = and == that leads to
>> the programming mistake.  The programmer did not make some mistake in
>> the destructive manipulation of data; he didn't even want the expression
>> to be destructive, but only misspelled the darn operator!
>>
>> How will you protect the programmer from misspelling one non-destructive
>> operator for another in a pure expression?
>>
>> What programming language butchery do you recommend for the situation
>> when - is written instead of +?
>
> "-" isn't generally used, in a million other contexts outside of the
> language, to mean "+".
>
> In everyday life, "=" *does* usually mean "equals".
>
> So the mistake is simply more likely.
>
> So things can be done about it, such as only allowing (a=b) to return a 
> value  when used on the rhs of another assignment. Or requiring an 
> explicit operator to extract the value of (a=b). It would be a dramatic 
> change to the language, but it will never be done because opponents will 
> insist that anyone who gets = and == mixed up is just a lousy programmer 
> and should be looking for a simpler occupation.
>

But assignment *can* be used on the lhs of the statement.  See the following 
code:

         int   *a, *b;

         a = malloc(sizeof(int));

         *(b=a) = 47;

-- 
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+
|      Charles Richmond       numerist@aquaporin4.com     |
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12854

On 2011-11-07, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote in message
> news:20111104214808.434@kylheku.com...
>
>> But it remains that it's the similarity between = and == that leads to
>> the programming mistake.  The programmer did not make some mistake in
>> the destructive manipulation of data; he didn't even want the expression
>> to be destructive, but only misspelled the darn operator!
>>
>> How will you protect the programmer from misspelling one non-destructive
>> operator for another in a pure expression?
>>
>> What programming language butchery do you recommend for the situation
>> when - is written instead of +?
>
> "-" isn't generally used, in a million other contexts outside of the
> language, to mean "+".

What if in some insane language, subtraction were written "++" and addition
"+"?

Would you fix the language with some insane restructuring of its fundamental
rules, or would you fix the damn spelling of "++" to "-"?

Being able to identify the true root cause of a problem is indispensable in the
computing business.

> In everyday life, "=" *does* usually mean "equals".
>
> So the mistake is simply more likely.

Here you seem agree with the spelling hypothesis. Since = means equals,
programmers sometimes mistakenly use the wrong operator. If = actually
meant "equals", and assignment was spelled <= or :=, this mistake
would approximately vanish.

> So things can be done about it, such as only allowing (a=b) to return a 
> value  when used on the rhs of another assignment. 

Here, you seem disagree with the spelling hypothesis; it's a deeper problem
related to the context in which = is or is not allowed. We ought to keep the =
operator's spelling as it is, but compensate for it with additional
complications.

> Or requiring an explicit 
> operator to extract the value of (a=b). It would be a dramatic change to the 
> language, but it will never be done because opponents will insist that 

All of those are dramatic changes: changing the spelling of an operator,
or fiddling with various semantic rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12856

On 11/07/2011 02:49 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
...
> What if in some insane language, subtraction were written "++" and addition
> "+"?
> 
> Would you fix the language with some insane restructuring of its fundamental
> rules, or would you fix the damn spelling of "++" to "-"?

I would not recommend any change to C itself, because the need for
backwards compatibility prevents any meaningful fix to this problem.
Either change would be "insane" because of the huge amount of existing
code that would be broken.

As a feature of a brand new language, I wouldn't characterize the idea
that assignment should be a statement type and not an expression type
insane. It's a normal feature of many existing languages.

I would recommend making BOTH fixes for a new language: the grammatical
one and the spelling one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12879

On Nov 7, 8:49 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/07/2011 02:49 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> ...
>
> > What if in some insane language, subtraction were written "++" and addition
> > "+"?
>
> > Would you fix the language with some insane restructuring of its fundamental
> > rules, or would you fix the damn spelling of "++" to "-"?
>
> I would not recommend any change to C itself, because the need for
> backwards compatibility prevents any meaningful fix to this problem.
> Either change would be "insane" because of the huge amount of existing
> code that would be broken.
>
> As a feature of a brand new language, I wouldn't characterize the idea
> that assignment should be a statement type and not an expression type
> insane. It's a normal feature of many existing languages.

so are assignment expressions

I've always quite liked the idiom

    int c;

    while ((c = getchar ()) != EOF)
        process_char (c);

it often saves clumsy code

    int c = getchar ();

    while (c != EOF)
    {
        process_char (c);
        c = getchar ();
    }

> I would recommend making BOTH fixes for a new language: the grammatical
> one and the spelling one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web