"pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> So why stop with 'is'?

Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> So why stop with 'is'?
> 
> Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.

Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 10:34:47 AM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
> > "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> So why stop with 'is'?
> >
> > Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.
>
> Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we.

That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:01:24 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:
>>
>>> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> So why stop with 'is'?
>>>
>>> Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.
>>
>> Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we.
> 
> That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>.

Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due justification.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 11:04:08 AM

In article <11kxjvwiaop3l$.1gmwm3r9rr3av.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>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
>;-)

Hey, it was worth a shot, right?

- EricAnderton at yahoo

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'm all for it. Infact, if you were to implement it as "isnot", I would've asked you to make it "!is".

"isnot" is too Pascalish .. I hate Pascal (the language)

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
>?
>

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :)

Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed mnemonic
do just as well? Like:
if (x is y)
if (x ni y)  // Monty Python anyone? :)

if (x is y)
if (x si y)

if (x is y)
if (x ix y)

if (x is y)
if (x nis y)

if (x is y)
if (x ixnay y)

-Nod-

On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:

> In article <d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

>>How about:
>>    !is
> 
> That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :)

I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing
nightmare, and not worth the effort.

> Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed mnemonic
> do just as well? Like:
> if (x is y)
> if (x ni y)  // Monty Python anyone? :)

LOL!

 if (x !! y) // analogous to '=='

Or some 'out-there' versions ...

 if (x nay y) // scottish ?

 if (x mai y) // thai ?

 if (x is_not y) // avoid punctuations.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 2:30:15 PM

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> 
> 
>>>How about:
>>>   !is
>>
>>That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and
>>punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this
>>context, but still :)
> 
> 
> I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing
> nightmare, and not worth the effort.
>  

I don't know how compilers work .. but isn't that the same as !== ?

Vathix wrote:
> How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
> if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)
> 
> !| would be pretty useless, though.

Isn't that called "nand" and um, what's the other one, "nor"?
they are not exactly useless, they are aobut as useless as & and | anyway.