"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:d707ov$2eoj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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. :)

Then my task for today has been fulfilled. <g>

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> Regan Heath wrote:
>>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


Actually, I have nothing against having '!in', but I don't necessairly have to have it at all. I don't use '!(a in b)' too often. 'a !== b' shows up maybe 20 times more often in my code. Dunno about others though...
Still, I vote for 'isnt', I won't miss the missing apostrophe much :P


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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:50:49 +0300, Jari-Matti Mäkelä <jmjmak@utu.fi.no.sp.am> wrote:
> 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?

Nope. 'notin' seems like a good choice for this.

> IMO "isnt", "innt", "ntis" nor "ntin" don't sound and look so good as
> isNot or NotIn or their lowercase alternatives.

I disagree.

1. keywords with mixed case, no thanks.
2. 'isnot' is already out (as you yourself have mentioned below)

> The versions with a "_"
> sound like preprocessor macros to me.

Same here.

> But these "real word" keywords
> aren't particulary common in c-like languages.

I disagree:
for
while
if
do
include
define
error
line
else
case
continue
default
double
long
short
float
main
register
signed
static
switch
union
..

> More like Pascal or
> Basic. Besides Walter already told, there are some patent issues with
> isnot.

Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'.

Regan

"Jim H" <jimh@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:d70846$2fbk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "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.

It does look like a joke. But it isnot. (Can this get any sillier?)

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d7043p$2blk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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).

NAND is common in digital circuitry because it requires fewer transistors to build than AND. Hence, all the hardware logic tends to be built on top of NAND and NOR logic, rather than AND and OR. This rationale doesn't apply to software logic, however.

In article <opsraw0fs723k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
>
..
>
>Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'.
>
>Regan

Not sure who suggested "isnot" (it was my first choice), but now that it appears to be totally out of the question. So, I guess it's time for me to move into "isnt" camp, since that would be my next choice. Unless of course, we could out-smart(tm) Microsoft, and use "isknot" which is pronounced the same...but, just spelled differently! :))

David L.

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

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

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.

I don't know if I understand your post correctly, but...

I think it's *relatively* easier to confuse == with ===.

For instance:

if (x == 5)  // probably not mistaken for if (x = 5)
x = y + z;   // probably not mistaken for x == y + z;
if (x === y) // might be mistaken for if (x == y)
if (x is y)  // impossible to mistake for if (x == y)

James McComb

In article <d700at$287k$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

>3) Microsoft
has patented "isnot" as an operator.

Is is not isnot, or is not is not isnot?
Python let's me do the following:

 x is y
 x is not y
 x in y
 x not in y
I saw that `not' is not a reserved keyword, which allows the above. The parser
would have to look ahead one token after `is' and `not'.

Python disallows the
following:
 x is not in y

I would, obviously, use what the language
provides, but I'd prefer something
that keeps my mind from stumbling when
reading code. However, I suppose that
the mind will get used to reading `!is'
as `is not' with a little more effort
it took to read `!=' as `is not equal
to'. The thing that makes it a little
difficult is that, at least for a while,
I'll be reading `!is' as `is not is'.

Jay

"Jay" <Jay_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d70rml$3ai$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <d700at$287k$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>  x is y
>  x is not y
>  x in y
>  x not in y

Now there's a bright idea.

There will be those who go on about how it's too English-like, but given that 'is' and 'in' are already settled as words it makes perfect sense to use an addition word (rather than a symbolic '!'). The parser has to lookahead for the "!is" and "!in" cases anyway ... so there really no change there.

Good one, Jay. I, for one, hope this is the outcome.

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>>That said, I don;t really have a problem with '!=='. And come to that, I would
>>probably have gone for '=!='.
> 
> 
> I've been following this "isnot" discussion for quite a while, and this is the first time I see "=!=" mentioned.
> It's not prety, but neither is "!is", and probably because I'm not used to it.
> 
> =!= solves the readability problem of !==, and doesn't mix punctuation with text, what I like.
> 
> I still prefer "isnot" though. It does sound better than "!is", so the pronunciation argument mentioned by Walter seems invalid to begin with.
> 
> Also, please, arguments of the type "<x> looks like <language y> and I don't like <language y>". That's a strawman argument. I wish we'd get rid of this kind of reasoning once and for all.
> 
> L. 
> 
> 


Hmmm.... I tend to agree with Lionello on this one.  =!= might be the safest and most practical solution right now.

-JJR