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: 103376,338371dbbe7075d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: [Q] Portability of <= and >= with real operands
Date: 1996/12/03
Message-ID: <dewar.849648276@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 202167994
references: <E1u0nL.L0I@thomsoft.com> <E1uEEs.2xJ.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <1996Dec3.103933.1@eisner>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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.