make (a < b < c) illegal?

[Joel C. Salomon]

Russell Lewis wrote:
>> The chain that I'm concerned about is this:
>>     a==b == c==d
>> which (the spacing makes clear) is meant to be
>>     (a==b) == (c==d)
>> but which could me misread as
>>     (a==b) && (b==c) && (c==d)
>> and which is probably (I'm not sure) currently implemented by the 
>> compiler as:
>>     ((a==b) ==c) ==d
>>
>> IMHO, C should have allowed comparison chaining from the start, but 
>> since it didn't, I don't think that it would be a good idea to start 
>> allowing it.  There will always be the newbies from C who will misread 
>> it.  (sigh)
> 
> Addendum: I would be ok with making the less than/greater than operators 
> be chainable (since those operators are nonsense when used with boolean 
> values), but I would ask that no expression be able to mix less-than and 
> greater-than.  It would be ok to mix < with <=, but not < with >.

Why this prejudice?  With the chaining as people have discussed it,
	a < b > c
expands to
	(a < b) && (b > c)
— why would you prohibit this?

--Joel