Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (MU) 9/23/84; site mulga.OZ
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!mulga!bjpt
From: bjpt@mulga.OZ (Benjamin Thompson)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: YAAO  (yet another assignment operator)
Message-ID: <598@mulga.OZ>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 13:16:22 EST
Article-I.D.: mulga.598
Posted: Sat Dec 29 13:16:22 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 02:59:37 EST
References: <209@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <529@vu44.UUCP> <6616@brl-tgr.ARPA> <582@mulga.OZ> <6771@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: bjpt@mulga.OZ (Benjamin Thompson)
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 13
Summary: 

In article <6771@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>> 		X = Y;		(call this form 1)
>> is exactly the same statement as
>> 		X = X  Y;	(call this form 2)
>
>Not quite.  Another part of the semantics is that "X" is evaluated
>ONLY ONCE.  So a naive translation of form 1 to form 2 won't work.

Quite - I forgot about nifty little lvalues like *++x.  Even so, I should
imagine there is already code in the compilers to handle this type of problem
for the = operators C already has.  I think altering a C compiler to
allow more general ='s should still be fairly trivial.
operators we already have