Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> antonio wrote:
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>
>>>> antonio wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Simplicity in arguments forced million people die in Holocaust :-/.
>>>
>>> Let time and people defend and propose their solutions... natural evolution is better than forced imposition.
>>>
>>> I defend, now, && because is not "and" or "y"... :-)
> 
> O_o
> 
>>
>> Cool! Thread's officially over now!
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>>
>> --bb
> 
> Hell yeah... and it came surprisingly fast, Blitzkrieg style :P

:-)

Now we just need someone to post a Nazi comparison to the global warming thread.  ;-)  I'd do it but I just can't think of a good angle...

--bb

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:04:03 -0800, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote:

> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> antonio wrote:
>>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> antonio wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Simplicity in arguments forced million people die in Holocaust :-/.
>>>>
>>>> Let time and people defend and propose their solutions... natural evolution is better than forced imposition.
>>>>
>>>> I defend, now, && because is not "and" or "y"... :-)
>>  O_o
>>
>>>
>>> Cool! Thread's officially over now!
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>>>
>>> --bb
>>  Hell yeah... and it came surprisingly fast, Blitzkrieg style :P
>
> :-)
>
> Now we just need someone to post a Nazi comparison to the global warming thread.  ;-)  I'd do it but I just can't think of a good angle...
>
> --bb


I thought it was over... until you brought it up here. :D

-JJR

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> David Qualls schrieb am 2006-11-28:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps a few more BRIEF opinions regarding whether the standard
>>>> English operators should be adopted within the D language would be
>>>> enough to send the think-tank to their Cave Of Contemplation to
>>>> debate it amongst themselves. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adding addtional keywords that have exactly the same functions like
>>> already present keywords (actually keytokens) seems to be against D's
>>> spirit.
>>>
>>> The more general issue: Iv'e checked 10 random C/C++ projects
>>> (taken from Gentoo's portage) and none of them used iso646.h's alternative
>>> spellings.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFFa+7ZLK5blCcjpWoRAgQdAJ0UBatA3czG0A5+wZdMwcl50q/39gCghILf
>>> fpEBz2SVezekjI+rWqpibfE=
>>> =nQ5N
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>> Hang on... doesn't that header define macros that look like normal prefix functions?  You're comparing this:
>>
>>  > (expr1 and expr2) or (expr2 and expr3)
>>
>> with this:
>>
>>  > or(and(expr1, expr2), and(expr2, expr3))
>>
> [snip]
> 
>>
>> Blech; I'm rambling.  Sorry about that :)
> 
> 
> And not doing your homework either. :-)
> 
> A rudimentary google search turns up:
> 
> #define and && [keyword in C++]
> #define and_eq &= [keyword in C++]
> #define bitand & [keyword in C++]
> #define bitor | [keyword in C++]
> #define compl ~ [keyword in C++]
> #define not ! [keyword in C++]
> #define not_eq != [keyword in C++]
> #define or || [keyword in C++]
> #define or_eq |= [keyword in C++]
> #define xor ^ [keyword in C++]
> #define xor_eq ^= [keyword in C++]
> 
> So, no, iso464.h is not about prefix operators.  Just some simple #defines.

Blech.  Don't mind me, then.  In my defense, I didn't even know that header existed until I read this thread :P

> Interesting story about Australia not becoming a republic though.  :-)
> 
> --bb

Bloody John Howard.  I'd vote against him if the alternative wasn't worse :(

	-- Daniel

Daniel Keep wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>> Interesting story about Australia not becoming a republic though.  :-)
>>
>> --bb
> 
> Bloody John Howard.  I'd vote against him if the alternative wasn't worse :(

Most dishonest politician I know of. I'm not going back to Oz until he's gone.