From dmurdoch@pair.com  Fri Nov  8 18:05:30 2002
From: dmurdoch@pair.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:05:30 -0500
Subject: behavior of =
In-Reply-To: <87hees7xpl.fsf@jeeves.blindglobe.net>
References: <MABBLJDICACNFOLGIHJOOEKIDAAA.phgrosje@ulb.ac.be> <Pine.A41.4.44.0211080813030.108822-100000@homer40.u.washington.edu> <mirnsugtr7aefod5qfnuuurga6chh1hqtp@4ax.com> <87hees7xpl.fsf@jeeves.blindglobe.net>
Message-ID: <d3vnsu0k9ht4lh7u2qr2huilim7ah6e0gq@4ax.com>

On 08 Nov 2002 09:55:34 -0800, you wrote:

>>>>>> "duncan" == Duncan Murdoch <dmurdoch@pair.com> writes:

>    duncan> I would say a better change (but not good enough to be worth doing,
>    duncan> because it would break so much) would be to drop "=" as an assignment
>    duncan> operator, and use ":=" for that purpose.
>
>Why not "<-"  instead of ":="?  I still don't understand why this is
>in anyway better (except for pascal and modula programmers, see
>Thomas' point from a while back: "If you want those constructs, use
>those languages", is application.

Because "=" is different from "<-".  I'm suggesting that if we want
that distinction, then we should use the pair ":=" and "<-", rather
than overloading the meaning of "=".

But perhaps we don't need the distinction at all.

Duncan Murdoch
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


behavior of =
Duncan Murdoch