Re: C like op= proposal

[Andi Kleen <ak-uu@muc.de>]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> In article <m3u2pyutzu.fsf@fred.muc.de>,
>   Andi Kleen <ak-uu@muc.de> wrote:
> > [1] To attribute correctly this is an old argument from, I
> believe
> > Dennis Ritchie, in a prehistoric article about C. I think he's
> right.
> 
> 
> No, this is older than C, these notations were around in
> Algol variants (as +:=) before C existed. Note that Algol-68
> has these operators.

So was the argument "x+=1 is more human brain and code review friendly 
than x:=x+1" already used during Algol development? 

I was just attributing where I read this particular point
first.

I guess the reason why it wasn't included in Pascal is that Wirth
was too hooked to pure mathematical thinking where they of course
equivalent (ignoring that x:=x+1 is per see mathematical nonsense,
either x is x or it is x+1, but not both @)

> But there are many other factors in the Ada decision. Please
> go look up old threads, I don't feel like going over this stuff
> again myself :-)

I don't intend to, I understand that it is unrealistic and will
probably never happen to Ada.  I just couldn't resist to bring
another view to the boring "+= helps the optimizer" discussions.


-Andi
-- 
This is like TV. I don't like TV.