|[10 earlier articles]|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2006-03-06)|
|Re: Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (Russ Cox) (2006-03-06)|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-11)|
|Re: Dangling else Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca (Brian Inglis) (2006-03-11)|
|Re: Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-03-14)|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2006-03-15)|
|Re: Dangling else DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-03-15)|
|Re: Dangling else firstname.lastname@example.org (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-15)|
|Re: Dangling else email@example.com (2006-03-16)|
|From:||Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich@compuserve.de>|
|Date:||15 Mar 2006 22:09:57 -0500|
|References:||06-02-154 06-02-168 06-03-008 06-03-023 06-03-041|
Henry Spencer wrote:
> No, I'm thinking of things like `(x < y) and (q > 4)', where the
> parentheses are mandatory because the Boolean-condition operators
n> share the precedence levels of the arithmetic operators rather than
> having their own.
Here IMO the unification of bitwise (C: &) and logical (C: &&) boolean
operators (into AND) was the first questionable deviation, which
subsequently lead to problems with the operator precedence. For
completeness, the unification of string and character literals IMO was
another questionable simplification.
> Wirth himself, in his 1975 Pascal retrospective ("An assessment of the
> programming language Pascal", IEEE TransSoftEng 1.2, June 1975), said:
> "In retrospect... the decision to break with a widely used tradition seems
Nobody is perfect ;-)
Thanks for the reference, is that article online somewhere?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.