Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!pyramid!leadsv!laic!nova!eric
From: eric@nova.laic.uucp (Eric A. Raymond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Honour Parens" Rule (was: Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?)
Summary: Or more explicitly ....
Message-ID: <274@laic.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jun 88 20:58:53 GMT
References: <2742@utastro.UUCP> <20008@beta.UUCP> <10655@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6958@ki4pv.uucp>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Lines: 14

In article <6958@ki4pv.uucp>, tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
> While the unary plus was something of a stomach-turner ....

Come on people.  Haven't we learned anything yet about semantics of
programming languages.  If you want to enforce the sequential nature
of a set of constructs, use an explicit operator (i.e.
sequential-eval) to denote that.  Don't rely upon some side-effect of
another operator with different semantics.  (I always thought '+' meant plus.)

Maybe a leeson can be learned from Lisp world, where we have
sequential and parallel forms of binding (i.e. let* .vs. let). 
(And by the way, Lisp enforces left to right eval of function
arguments.  So flame on something else, if you please.)

Eric A. Raymond  - ...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!eric