April 04, 2006 not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too. I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example: Foo not is null Foo not in Bar This not keyword will only function when it is part of these expressions: EqualExpression RelExpression InExpression As a consequence the following would be valid: Foo not == Bar Foo not <= Bar -S. |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | S. Chancellor wrote:
> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too. I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example:
>
> Foo not is null
> Foo not in Bar
>
> This not keyword will only function when it is part of these expressions:
>
> EqualExpression
> RelExpression
> InExpression
>
> As a consequence the following would be valid:
>
> Foo not == Bar
> Foo not <= Bar
>
> -S.
>
I don't hate !is and !in, but if they were to change, I would suggest a more succinct syntax:
!is => not
!in => out
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | S. Chancellor wrote:
> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too. I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example:
>
> Foo not is null
> Foo not in Bar
>
> This not keyword will only function when it is part of these expressions:
>
> EqualExpression
> RelExpression
> InExpression
>
> As a consequence the following would be valid:
>
> Foo not == Bar
> Foo not <= Bar
D !is BASIC
;-)
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:34:24 -0700, S. Chancellor <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote: > I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too. I like !in and !is. > I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. I don't like it. - It's more typing. - "!" already means "not" to me (in this context). - I read "!is" as "not is" and can't see an advantage to having "is not" instead. (I don't see why it has to be correct english) Regan |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | "S. Chancellor" <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message news:e0spgo$2jvr$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Foo not is null > Foo not in Bar Ew. > Foo not == Bar > Foo not <= Bar How about Foo not equal to Bar Foo not less than or equal to Bar While you're at it? ;) Terseness is both a curse and a blessing of C-style syntax... |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:59:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > Terseness is both a curse and a blessing of C-style syntax... A language that I use daily (Progress 4GL) not only has the standard operators defined in terms of symbol characters etc... is also has them defined as ... eq ne gt lt ge le so one can write code such as for each Customer where balance gt 1000 -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia "Down with mediocracy!" 4/04/2006 4:10:11 PM |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer should therefore understand !in or !is. Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in the way for everyday use. The problem of Perl, for example, is not that it uses cryptic operators, but that it uses too many, so that it takes a long time to know all of them. the die-hard Perl users love that because it really improves productivity, but any outsider is left in the rain. For D, it is important to find the right measure which lies somewhere in between Perl and Cobol: http://www.csis.ul.ie/COBOL/Exercises/Exm-AcmeStockReorder/Prg-AcmeStockReorder.htm |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | S. Chancellor wrote: > I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too. I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ? > I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example: > > Foo not is null > Foo not in Bar But this just looks just as horrible ? Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ? I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned. --anders |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> A language that I use daily (Progress 4GL) not only has the standard
> operators defined in terms of symbol characters etc... is also has them
> defined as ...
>
> eq
> ne
> gt
> lt
> ge
> le
>
> so one can write code such as
>
> for each Customer where balance gt 1000
The same is also used in Perl and in PPC assembler.
Probably lots of other places, as well. I like them.
--anders
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Norbert Nemec | Norbert Nemec wrote:
> Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer
> should therefore understand !in or !is.
>
> Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable
> when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in
> the way for everyday use.
Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?
I know many people that prefer 'not' over '!', 'and' over '&&', etc etc.
Originally I didn't see a problem of adding them as alternative syntax, but now I know that it would somehow mean the D originals have to go...
So requiring '!is' is bad enough, without making it 'not is' - or worse.
It isn't very beautiful, but then I don't think that was a design goal ?
--anders
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation