the := operator (affectation

[Jim MacConnell]

Dennis,

First.. thank you for your intelligent reply to my:
>> okay.. back into my hole...
> Yes, Please stay there.
It is good to so easily learn so much of the people we correspond  
with. I'm not surprised that I touched a nerve but I am surprised at  
the scream ... sorry ;-{ )

Second..
> var := x
> var == x
> var = x  --this is a bit tougher
> var isAssignedToTheValueOf x
> var gets x
>
> are all the same thing!
Well.. they are close.  They all may have the same result at a  
machine code level... (although I believe var == x resolves to TRUE  
if var and x are the same (false otherwise).. and usually the same  
for (var = x) if it is parentheses? ) but the discussion is not about  
values of variables or what the machine does... or at least my  
contribution wasn't. It seemed to me, the discussion was about  
consistency in a language and the inclusion of semantically different  
operators in addition to those that are inherently  ones. Seems like  
you didn't understand rather than me.

Third...
> You say one is a good construct and another is an inconsistent  
> construct!  That makes your argument inconsistent.
Maybe reread my post? I don't see in my message where I said any of  
those was a good construct for an xTalk. I said "put x into var" was  
a good construct for an xTalk language because it is consistent with  
the concept of telling the object what "It" should do as opposed to a  
variable being assigned something...  It may seem a trivial point but  
it is at the root of the discussion...

Or perhaps the point is that if all of the above are the same but are  
non-xTalk friendly conceptually, is it appropriate for us to worry  
about whether Transcript includes any of them.... Of course you left  
the "put x into var" out of the list even though I would assume that  
from your point of view it is also the same thing.... So why did you  
leave it off?  it appears to be the only one that is 100% consistent  
with the xTalk construct..... Could it be you agree with me at some  
level?

Finally...
> You just don't get it ;-)
> I can't say I can get it into your head, though I can put it into  
> your head.
> Perhaps Jim gets it now.

... telling someone their argument is inconsistent or that they don't  
get it when it appears you maybe didn't  actually listen to/read what  
they were saying does little to build your credibility. Following the  
same with a condescending cute smiley does not help. This list is a  
great place for constructive discussion and it should stay that way.  
Keep your personal comments to yourself.. and I'll be lighter on the  
" ...some renegade variable is off filling itself with data..."  
comments.

Jim