Re: Clever UNIX/C Constructs

[Jim Langston <jimlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

bmorris@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Jim, do you have a reference for this statement that += was needed
> because a = a + 5 was nonsense algebraically?
> 
> C allows a = a + 5;, and anyway, in C, "a = b;" has nothing to do
> with algebra or evaluating to true or false.

Reference? No, something I read somewhere years ago.
 
> Please don't group ++ and -- in with += and -= since they are two different
> sets of operators.  It's ++ and -- that can lead to difficult-to-understand
> and impossible-to-maintain code.
> 
> The proposed RPG enhancement would limit expressions to a single += used
> as the assignment operator.  They would allow you to take expressions that
> are half a yard long and make them a quarter of a yard long.  In my book,
> that's easier to read and more maintainable.

Well, += -= aren't quite a quarter as bad as -- or ++.  Without ++ and -- to
muddle the waters it'll probably work out just fine.  

Regards,

Jim Langston
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---