1. Re: [If/then and sequences...]
> > "C" uses == ( double equal signs ) for comparison
> > and = ( single equal sign ) for assignment
> > which makes good sense and I think would be easy to implement.
>
> I strongly disagree. It's too far easy to type '=' for '=='. I've always
> considered this to be a Very Bad Thing in C and C-derived languages. I
don't
> have anything nice to say about '=:', either.
I agree, with a parser, there's no need to have the double equals.
There's been so many times where I've done when the other was correct. If
the compiler knows when I was wrong, why have them at all?
> On the other hand, Euphoria's implementation of '=' is, while logically
> consistant, quite irritating. I rarely (intentionally) used '=' on a
> sequence. On the other hand, I'm constantly using the equal() operator.
>
> It's a source of confusion to new users of the language, and is one of the
> few things in the language that I *really* despise. I really wish that
> Robert had instead written eq/lt/gt functions, for the few times that sort
> of thing is needed. I suspect that if Robert changed the current behavior,
> very little code would break.
If you like eq, lt, gt go back to assembly. I personally think that it's
pretty accepted that '=' is equal, '<' is less than and '>' is greater than,
whether assignment wise or logically. using eq() functions is both tedious
and would result in significant slow down in the interpreter... yeha, let's
make everything a function, why have anything at all. Let's have add() and
sub() to. Why not go all the way, and have no language at all, just function
call. Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. No, wait, THAT'S STUPID.
eq() function... sheesh... that's one for the books...
