"Nod" <Nod_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6u84j$2n6n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> if (x is y)
> if (x ixnay y)

You get my vote for most creative entry! Thanks for the chuckle.

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:ugj7ry3kmdwv$.1x7i3n72g0lmw$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 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.

Not a problem. I wouldn't have proposed it if it was unworkable. It requires an extra lookahead token, but the parser uses lookahead already in several places.

"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Looks great to me!
>
> It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210

I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!

In article <d6umk7$3us$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Looks great to me!
>>
>> It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210
>
>I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!

Sorry, I can't take credit for the idea. I'm not sure who first proposed it, but I'm sure it wasn't me. In fact, at least 3 other people mentioned it before I put it on my list. :)


spock (ex novice3)
Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21126

Anders
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:25:43 +0200
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21167

Pragma
#4 on his list (which inspired my list)
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:17:31 +0000 (UTC)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21174


jcc7

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 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.

Mathematically (!x | !y) is the same as !(x & y) and proposed (x !& y).
IMO having multiple redundant operators doesn't make the readability
much better. Are there any good arguments for the proposed logical (not
is & and) operators?


Jari-Matti

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:44:29 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:193ee48yh511k.1cixoutbwq6i6.dlg@40tude.net...
>> 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.
> 
> I am asking for feedback on this, but at some point, somebody's just gotta decide.

Duh! Of course. But upon what principles are such decisions being based on?

Gut-feel?
"I don't know much about art but I know what I like"?
Consensus?
Scoring?
Conformance to the published goals for D?
etc .. ...
-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
24/05/2005 7:58:20 PM

Kris wrote:
> Aye; but there's no comma ~ hence no bang. More of a "phuuut" <g>
> 
> (society doesn't care for punctuation anymore; boo hoo)
> 
> 
> 
> "Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message
> news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r@esi...
> 
>>>"not" ...
>>>
>>>if (x is y)
>>>if (x not y)
>>>

I Like this Kris!

-DavidM

Walter wrote:
> "J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Looks great to me!
>>
>>It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;)
>>http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210
> 
> 
> I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and
> couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!
> 
> 

noooooooo
I thought about it first!!!
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/22977

actually, if you look at the dates, his is older than mine :'(
ah well.

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've just read most of this thread.  Everytime I see "isnot" I read and pronounce it as "is not".  After a while, knowing what the keyword means and how to say it, I can't see "isnot" as anything _but_ "is not".  My point is that although you can think of it as "I snot", in practice I personally don't parse it as such.
Every time I see "!is", well I don't really know how to say it. Certainly, I don't make the (click)is sound!  I think that it is important to be able to speak easily about constructs (especially when explaining the code to another).  I guess what I am trying to say is that for me "isnot" parses through my brain far more smoothly than "!is".

All that said, I favour "a !is b" over "(!(a is b))", but I think my favourite would be "a isnot b"

Thanks
Brad

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.

"isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)

Of course, it should probably be spelled "isn't" to be 100% accurate...

> How about:
>     !is
> ?

Q: Does this mean that === and !== are going to be deprecated/removed ?

Or is the D language big enough to have two tokens for the same thing.

--anders