"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1lqiubii1271i.6sc4whscwksc.dlg@40tude.net...
> Duh! Of course. But upon what principles are such decisions being based
on?

I think these principles (or at least reasons) are being pretty well hashed
out here.

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)

I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ?


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Russ Lewis wrote:
> 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 :)

Such compiler will not technically be a D compiler .. atleast one that doesn't abid by the standards.
That's a dirty way to implement something into the language.
And, "graphics.h" has been around for a long time, but no one other than borland supports it.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:56 +0200, Tom S <h3r3tic@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
>> "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)
>
> I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ?

I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't should technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the slightest.

Regan

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> 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

I assume !& would be "nand" (I don't exactly remember what nand was).
nand is a meaningfull "truth" operator. I'm unware of its applications in low level programming, but then again, I'm not very much aware of the  uses of & itself. (well, other than bitmasking).

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:21:15 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

> 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.

It is not so much that there is something innately wrong with "!==". The more pressing point is when somebody says 'What is the negative of "is"?', you reply "!==". Sure "===" and "!==" has a sort of symmetry but "is" and "!==" just doesn't have that. So therefore we need to come up with an operator that is more attuned to "is".

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
25/05/2005 7:06:37 AM

Regan Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:56 +0200, Tom S <h3r3tic@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:
> 
>> Anders F Björklund wrote:
>>
>>> "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)
>>
>>
>> I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and  parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there  any hope ?
> 
> 
> I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't should  technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the slightest.
> 
> Regan

Then !(a in b) would be (a innt b), eh?

IMO "isnt", "innt", "ntis" nor "ntin" don't sound and look so good as isNot or NotIn or their lowercase alternatives. The versions with a "_" sound like preprocessor macros to me. But these "real word" keywords aren't particulary common in c-like languages. More like Pascal or Basic. Besides Walter already told, there are some patent issues with isnot. Although this might be FUD, it's risky to fight with big corporations especially when your language outperforms theirs :)


Jari-Matti

Walter wrote:
> 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>.

You have forever ruined the operator "isnot" for me. :)

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>> 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 :)
> 
> Such compiler will not technically be a D compiler .. atleast one that doesn't abid by the standards.
> That's a dirty way to implement something into the language.
> And, "graphics.h" has been around for a long time, but no one other than borland supports it.

(smile) I guess I just use gcc too much.  I suspect that Walter's 1.0 compiler will function sort of like ANSI C - everybody needs to support it, but most compilers will also support a lot of things that aren't in the "official" language.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d700at$287k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> 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.
>

I thought you were kidding. But I did a quick search and here it is:


http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

(Sorry for the big link)

It seems it only applies to BASIC though. I've heard it said that they just be applying for a patent to discourage people from using that operator, although they may not expect it to actually get approved. Sounds crazy to me that you could patent such a thing.

It reminds me of that old article on the Onion (www.theonion.com) where Microsoft had patented 1 and 0, and therefore owned the rights to all software ever written.

Jim