> As I recall, the specification seems to imply (incorrectly?) that one must
> always compare against null
> with the 'is' operator.  Is this incorrect?  If so, I think we may need to
> reexamine the spec because it
> seems like a certain percentage of people are misreading it.

If that is so, then I am certainly one making such a mistake

> Owen
>
> In article <c7lcfs$1ugj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >What's wrong with
> >
> >    if(null !== foo)
> >
> >?
> >
> >"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message news:c7lb26$1skj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
> >>
> >> It is a small change, easily done in my opinion. What do you think, Walter ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

> Matthew wrote:
> > What's wrong with
> >
> >     if(null !== foo)
> >
> > ?
>
> I'd say the same thing that's wrong with
>
>      if(foo === null)  // as opposed to if(foo is null)
>
> Absolutely nothing! Except that it is clearer and less errorprone.
> Quite frankly I don't see much of a problem with the proposal.
> Of course I'm not the one engineering this beast, so I'll
> leave it up to the big boys to decide.

No, I don't see much wrong either. Was just being orthogonal.

However, I don't like isnot. I'd prefer "is not".

I'd also like to be able to use "not" with "in" for searching containers.


>
> > "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message news:c7lb26$1skj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >>I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
> >>
> >>It is a small change, easily done in my opinion. What do you think, Walter ?
> >>

Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is
> tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D
> would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo
> isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and
> makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
> 
> It is a small change, easily done in my opinion. What do you think, Walter ?
> 
> 
> 

I would prefer:

	a !is b

And:

	a !== b

But that's just my personal opinion.

-[Unknown]

Well so D will become DASIC , not just D.
Basic has them all . Is , Not , TypeOf etc ... I don't think we would
implement more English word in a programming language , let's it has
something common for everyone . != and == are good . If we want code more
clean , why don't we implement isEqual() and notEqual() in our object
"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message
news:c7lb26$1skj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
>
> It is a small change, easily done in my opinion. What do you think, Walter
?
>
>
>

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
> 
>> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is
>> tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D
>> would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo
>> isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and
>> makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
>>
>> It is a small change, easily done in my opinion. What do you think, Walter ?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I would prefer:
> 
>     a !is b

I like that.

> 
> And:
> 
>     a !== b

I don't like that so much (especially not "==="). But they're a whole bunch more consistant with D than "isnot" or "not is". I like BASIC okay, but I don't want D to morph into BASIC.

> 
> But that's just my personal opinion.
> 
> -[Unknown]

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"Unknown W. Brackets" wrote:
>         a === null
>         a !== null
>         a === b
>         a !== b

If I would dislike such things (which I don't) then I would
write the equivalent of C macros (D functions optimized away):

  IsNull(a)
  NotNull(a)
  PtrEqu(a,b)
  PtrCmp(a,b)

Best done as part of the standard library.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

Helmut Leitner wrote:
> 
> "Unknown W. Brackets" wrote:
> 
>>        a === null
>>        a !== null
>>        a === b
>>        a !== b
> 
> 
> If I would dislike such things (which I don't) then I would
> write the equivalent of C macros (D functions optimized away):
> 
>   IsNull(a)
>   NotNull(a)
>   PtrEqu(a,b)
>   PtrCmp(a,b)
> 
> Best done as part of the standard library.
> 

Urgh! You propose that the built-in syntax should not be used and one should have to create functions for these most basic operations? I would much rather have the normal syntax be readable and not rely on a library to fix a design fault.

I also don't think that PtrEqu(a,b) is particularly well readable. The Windows API does this kind of thing a lot and IMHO this is merely the lesser of two evils in most cases. Better use the good solution while you still can.

Hauke

Matthew wrote:

> 
> However, I don't like isnot. I'd prefer "is not".
> 
> I'd also like to be able to use "not" with "in" for searching containers.
> 

Agreed. I didn't like the "isnot" operator. "is not" is much better, IMHO.

Bruno.

Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is
> tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D
> would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo
> isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and
> makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.

+1 for this proposal if the operator becomes ain't.

Example:
if(a ain't b) // etc..

James McComb

JamesMcComb wrote:

> Achilleas Margaritis wrote:
>
>> I am currently writing some GUI application with D, and I found it is
>> tiresome and errorprone to write !(foo is null) all the time. I think D
>> would benefit from an 'isnot' operator. If it existed, I could write 'foo
>> isnot null' and be more productive, since it is easy to forget the ! and
>> makes the code more beautiful since less parentheses are needed.
>
>
> +1 for this proposal if the operator becomes ain't.
>
> Example:
> if(a ain't b) // etc..
>
> James McComb

Is this a joke?  The ' would cause also kinds of parsing errors.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/