From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: [Q] Portability of <= and >= with real operands
Date: 1996/12/03
Date: 1996-12-03T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.849648276@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1996Dec3.103933.1@eisner
Larry said, answering Tuck
"> Are you also saying that X <= Y is somehow "better" than not (X > Y)?
Depending on the context, one form or the other may be _much_ easier
for a human to scan. It all depends upon how X and Y have been used
in the surrounding lines, as well as what the real names are (one hopes
that only those doing graphics or genetics actually name variables
X and Y)."
Sure, of course, we all know this, and it applies to all sorts of contexts,
it is really why NOT is in the language. But this comment has nothing to
do with the issue, which is that to imply one is more portable than the
other, which is also how I read Keith's message also, is very weird.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-12-03 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-11-29 0:00 [Q] Portability of <= and >= with real operands JP Thornley
1996-11-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-12-01 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox