From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical,
Date: 1997/05/08
Message-ID: <E9vGpH.Iz@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240254066
References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com>
 <5kmek2$9re@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <E9rMuy.Hs0@world.std.com>
 <5kqg8d$95@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5kqg8d$95@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't you agree that C++ amplifies this problem greatly by not only
>allowing assigments to return something, but also by allowing assignments
>to serve as l-values? And without proper sequencing at that.

Yeah, from what you say, it sounds like it amplifies the problem.  I
don't know this part of C++ well enough to judge whether this is a bad
language design decision on the whole.  That is, I don't know why this
change was made -- maybe there are other good aspects about it.

- Bob