1. Re: Pete
Well, it was not an error: I just did not even think to this.
So I should have added: "Because a conditional statement must have
exactly one relational operator in it, conditional "a:=b:=c" is bad
(because it has none) and would also raise a syntax error."
Of course, this would not work as fine if multiple chained operators
were allowed. That's another topic.
Also note that, in the list of characters before '=', I forgot to
include ']' and '}'; but this does not change the point.
Regards
CChris
>> Since there must be one relational oprerator only in a >>condition,
>>"a=b=c" would cause a syntax error. Both "a:=b=c" and "a=b:=c" would >be
>>unambiguously recognized.
>> Since a statement cannot contain two level-0 assignments, a
>> >>standalone
>>"a:=b=c" would raise a syntax errror, just as "a=b=c" would.
>>^^^^^^^^
>
>I believe you meant a:=b:=c. The fact that you made an error when
>thinking hard about it just ever so extremely suggests to me this is a
>really bad idea.>
>
>Pete
