From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from groucho.cs.psu.edu ([130.203.2.10]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2230>; Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:07:55 -0400
Received: from localhost by groucho.cs.psu.edu with SMTP id <2583>; Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:07:10 -0400
To:	John Mackin (_You_ hide, they seek.) <john@physiol.su.oz.au>
cc:	The rc Mailing List <rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about redirection 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jul 92 20:45:52 EDT."
             <199207211045.18924.rc.babat@physiol.su.oz.au> 
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:06:33 -0400
From:	Scott Schwartz <schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <92Jul20.220710edt.2583@groucho.cs.psu.edu>


The point is that |[m=n] is confusing because it uses '=' in such a
different way than >[m=n].  Wouldn't |[m|n] have been more obvious?
Aside from the deeper semantic issues, it is "m:=n" vs "m->n", but with
the same symbol '=' stuck in the middle.  Yes, you can "think about it
the right way", but why should one have to?  Grumble, grumble, grumble.  :-)

By the way, does anyone miss "if not" (from Tom Duff's rc)?  I don't.
Anyone really like overloading static to mean both "own" and
"private"?  I don't.