"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r@esi...
> > "not" ...
> >
> > if (x is y)
> > if (x not y)
> >
>
> Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>

Actually, the ! is pronounced as a tongue click:

    !is => "(click)is"

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:44:50 -0700, Walter wrote:

> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
> 
> How about:
>     !is
> ?

I think your reasons are quite unsophisticated, but it doesn't really matter what you choose Walter; anything is better than the current situation.

I think this would be the first case in D, of an operator that mixes letters with punctuation characters. If your okay with that, then go with this hybrid.

Do you also understand the desire for a '!in' operator?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 8:00:51 AM

How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)

!| would be pretty useless, though.

and !!x
which means absolutely not!!

Or !~not , which is simply a knot. Wasn't there mention of a band called "And And And" in that movie "The Commitments"?

"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r@esi...
> and !!x
> which means absolutely not!!

With all these clicks, we'll begin to sound like Triffids (remember them?)

In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r@esi>, Vathix says...
>
>How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
>if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)
>

Actually, that would make a good deal of sense.  Allowing the '!' operator to be paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way '+=' does.

Given the following:

<arg1> !<op> <arg2>

Becomes:

!(<arg1> <op> <arg2>)

So why stop with 'is'?

>!| would be pretty useless, though.

Not necessarily, since it would be equivalent to the production "!(a | b)",
which is perfectly valid (if it is poor form).

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Tom S wrote:
> Walter wrote:
> 
>> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
>> 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
>> the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
>>
>> How about:
>>     !is
>> ?
> 
> 
> My eyes refuse to parse it. I'm just getting an error while reading 'a not is b' /* a !is b */ :( I need a preprocessor and I'm gonna use 'isnot' or 'aint'... Or I'm gonna stick with !== (unless it becomes deprecated)
> 
> 

same problem here... although I imagine I'd eventually come to grips with it. anything is better than !==

In article <d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
>
>How about:
>    !is
>?

In case you don't catch my other post to this thread, '!is' gets my vote.

Although, what would be better is that if that form were extended to all other binary operators as well.

That way the production:
<arg1> !<op> <arg2>

Is synonomous with:
!(<arg1> <op> <arg2>)

Which would cover the proposal for !is, the request for !in and any others that may come up.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC), pragma wrote:

> In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r@esi>, Vathix says...
> Allowing the '!' operator to be
> paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way '+='
> does.
> 
> Given the following:
> 
> <arg1> !<op> <arg2>
> 
> Becomes:
> 
> !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>)

Nice one... though "a !== b" would then mean "!(a == b)" which !is the case
;-)

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 9:43:46 AM

In article <d6tlug$28a6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>Or !~not , which is simply a knot. Wasn't there mention of a band called "And And And" in that movie "The Commitments"?
>
>"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r@esi...
>> and !!x
>> which means absolutely not!!
>
>With all these clicks, we'll begin to sound like Triffids (remember them?)

Or the !Kung ;)


Sean