I'm going to get stoned for saying this, but I don't even really like "is" all that much... and I'll never understand why "==" is perfectly wonderful, but "!==" has problems.

-[Unknown]


> 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
> ?
> 
> 

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
> ?

Hey, either option is better than !(a is b).  I'm glad you're looking at implementing this, however it happens!

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
>?
>
>

Well I suppose "!is" (not is), or should that be pronounced "duh_it_doesnt_exist", _is_ better then the current "!==" syntax, but frankly I'm still in the "isnot" camp. :P

Course, it would be nice to have this tropic decided upon before D v1.0 is released.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

pragma wrote:
> 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.

Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>=

--BenjiSmith

Benji Smith wrote:
> pragma wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>=
> 
> --BenjiSmith

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html:

RelExpression:
	RelExpression !<>= ShiftExpression
	RelExpression !<> ShiftExpression
	RelExpression !> ShiftExpression
	RelExpression !>= ShiftExpression
	RelExpression !< ShiftExpression
	RelExpression !<= ShiftExpression
	(others snipped)

:)


xs0

In article <d6vo2r$1skb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, xs0 says...
>
>Benji Smith wrote:
>> pragma wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>=
>> 
>> --BenjiSmith
>
> From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html:
>
>RelExpression:
>	RelExpression !<>= ShiftExpression
>	RelExpression !<> ShiftExpression
>	RelExpression !> ShiftExpression
>	RelExpression !>= ShiftExpression
>	RelExpression !< ShiftExpression
>	RelExpression !<= ShiftExpression
>	(others snipped)

Ack! I completely forgot those existed. :(

Just forget I even brought the topic up.  '!is' by itself should be fine.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

David L. Davis wrote:
> Well I suppose "!is" (not is), or should that be pronounced
> "duh_it_doesnt_exist", _is_ better then the current "!==" syntax, but frankly
> I'm still in the "isnot" camp. :P
> 
> Course, it would be nice to have this tropic decided upon before D v1.0 is
> released. 

I don't know that it matters too much.  If there is ever some other compiler that chooses to use "isnot", then, before long, most compilers will support both :)

>> Actually, I use "!!" a lot when passing ints for a bool. It's nicer than x!=0 or x!=false :-)
>> 
>> 
>correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "!!" uselessly redundant? you can just remove it and achieve the same effect.

No e.g:

!42 => 0
!0 => 1

so
!! 42 => 1

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:d6vior$1mqs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> My point is that although you can think of it as "I snot", in practice I
personally don't parse it as such.

I understand. It's just that I've been inundated with the current marketing trend for prefixing "i" to everyday words to make it "internet". Just like the past frenzy of prefixing "e". I can't help it, whenever I see "isnot" I think it's some new internet product. It's a silly reason, all the same <g>.

> Certainly, I don't make the (click)is sound!

That was a joke <g>. (There is at least one human language that uses a tongue click.) I'd just pronounce !is as "is not".

There are a couple other arguments against isnot:

1) The !in application has been brought up. I don't think innot is in the cards.

2) ! is the C language family term for "not".

3) Microsoft has patented "isnot" as an operator. While I feel this patent is absurd and would not stand in court, I have neither the resources nor the desire to go court about it.

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:d6vjt6$1o8a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Q: Does this mean that === and !== are going to be deprecated/removed ?

Yes. It'll be deprecated for a while, and eventually removed.

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

C++ has "alternate tokens" for many operators, and the best that could be said for it is it seemed a good idea at the time. The alternate tokens are essentially never used, to the point where few even realize they are in the language. Then they get tripped up by them.

The problem with === and !== is that with some fonts they are indistinguishable from == and !=. If they become alternate tokens, then they'll fall into disuse and people will trip over the === (thinking it is ==) and wonder why their code is not working right.