I have read once about the dilemma that some C programmers face: that of writing == for equality comparison and = for assignment. Specifically when using ==, one might mistakenly write = instead. In some cases, the compiler will catch one red-handed, and in the other cases, it will not, potentially causing bugs.
The solution I have used, even before having read about this problem, is a simple #define EQU ==, followed by using only EQU for equality comparisons. For personal reasons, this seemed preferrable to using ==. The question is, am I a nigger?
The right thing would be the lack of syntax for initalisation int nigger 1; and because you should not have mutable state we do not need a operator for asigment so = is for checking equality
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-24 17:32
and because you should not have mutable state we do not need a operator for asigment
The solution I have used, even before having read about this problem, is a simple #define EQU ==, followed by using only EQU for equality comparisons.
WAT R U ONE OF DOSE FUKIN 32 YEAR OLD WOMEN WHO PRIDE DEMSELVES ON HAVIN BANNED HARRY POTTER BOOKZ IN DER CHILDREN'S LUNCH BOXES COS UR FUKIN CHURCH THINKS MAGIC IS SATANIC? I BET U USE HUNGARIAN NOTATION TOO, COS UR SCARED DAT 1 DAY U MIGHT FORGET TO LOOK AT HOW U DECLARED AN IDENTIFIER N MAKE A RETOIDED ASSUMPTION, DONT YA YA FUKIN SAFETY BOI?
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-25 8:13
assignment should be := comparison should be =?
Name:
Anonymous2014-06-25 8:21
>>11 In Io, assignment is = and what amounts to declaration (with assignment) is :=
BEGIN FUNCTION MAIN WITH ARGUMENTS ARGC AS INTEGER, ARGV AS POINTER TO POINTER TO CHAR RETURNING INTEGER ASSIGN 5 TO NEW INTEGER A INCREMENT A IF A IS EQUAL TO 6 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" RETURN 0 END FUNCTION