Jump to page: 1 25  
Page
Thread overview
not operator operator..
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
Wang Zhen
Apr 04, 2006
kris
Apr 04, 2006
Charles
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
Derek Parnell
Apr 04, 2006
John C
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
Derek Parnell
Apr 04, 2006
Bruno Medeiros
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
Georg Wrede
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
Derek Parnell
Apr 05, 2006
Georg Wrede
Apr 05, 2006
Derek Parnell
Apr 05, 2006
Chris Miller
Apr 05, 2006
Deewiant
Apr 05, 2006
Lars Ivar Igesund
Apr 05, 2006
Deewiant
Apr 05, 2006
Lars Ivar Igesund
Apr 04, 2006
Norbert Nemec
Apr 04, 2006
Don Clugston
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
Derek Parnell
Apr 04, 2006
Regan Heath
Apr 04, 2006
Kyle Furlong
Apr 04, 2006
S. Chancellor
Apr 04, 2006
Mike Parker
Apr 04, 2006
Lars Ivar Igesund
Apr 04, 2006
Georg Wrede
April 04, 2006
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5