Re: m68k gcc/egcs question

Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk>
3 Oct 1999 03:28:51 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question mrs@kithrup.com (1999-09-24)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question jejones@microware.com (James Jones) (1999-09-27)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question albert@korppi.cs.tut.fi (1999-09-28)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question zalman@netcom3.netcom.com (Zalman Stern) (1999-10-01)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question zoltan@bendor.com.au (Zoltan Kocsi) (1999-10-01)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question zalman@netcom12.netcom.com (Zalman Stern) (1999-10-03)
Re: m68k gcc/egcs question graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk (Graham Murray) (1999-10-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.compilers
Date: 3 Oct 1999 03:28:51 -0400
Organization: Private Internet Host
References: 99-09-078 99-09-103 99-09-111
Keywords: algol68

In comp.sys.m68k, James Jones <jejones@microware.com> writes:


> Hmmm...if the result of an assignment operator is an lvalue (isn't that
> how Algol 68 does it?), then it should be possible to write
>
> (c = 10) += x


It has been a few years since I used Algol68, but I don't think it
allowed that contruct. What it did allow, and which could be useful, is
a construct like


  IF a > 100 THEN a ELSE b FI := x;


where the LHS of the assignment operator could be a clause (which
returns the value of type REF xxxx, where the RHS of the operator
could be coerced into type xxxx)

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.