January 20, 2005
subj

I coldn't find this in docs.


January 20, 2005
nail wrote:
> subj
> 
> I coldn't find this in docs.

AIUI none - one's just syntactic sugar for the other (whichever way you look at it).

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
January 20, 2005
1 character ? :-)

--anders

PS.
I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='
January 20, 2005
>PS.
>I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='

In this case isnt must be :)

What about future? Does === will become deprecated?


January 20, 2005
"nail" <nail_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cson1b$5f6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >PS.
> >I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='
>
> In this case isnt must be :)
>
> What about future? Does === will become deprecated?

Yes, use "is" from now on. The === turned out to be a problem distinguishing from == with some fonts.


January 20, 2005
Anders F wor wrote:
> 1 character ? :-)
> 
> --anders
> 
> PS.
> I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='

Gah! It makes me cringe without an apostrophe, though :(.

I must have had a good English teacher in high school, because such things pain me. (As well as its-it's their-there-they're to-too and a lot (the only proper way is a lot, two separate words, not one)...but I guess I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, too...)

-PIB
January 20, 2005
Paul Bonser wrote:

> I must have had a good English teacher in high school, because such things pain me. (As well as its-it's their-there-they're to-too and a lot (the only proper way is a lot, two separate words, not one)...but I guess I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, too...)

I guess you're not in favor of an "aint" keyword then ? :-)

Or maybe it should use "p is not null", just like in SQL...

Oh, well: !(p is null)

--anders
January 20, 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Paul Bonser wrote:
> 
>> I must have had a good English teacher in high school, because such things pain me. (As well as its-it's their-there-they're to-too and a lot (the only proper way is a lot, two separate words, not one)...but I guess I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, too...)
> 
> 
> I guess you're not in favor of an "aint" keyword then ? :-)
> 
> Or maybe it should use "p is not null", just like in SQL...
> 
> Oh, well: !(p is null)
> 
> --anders

aint would be awesome...
though I think ain't is the right way...innit?
Well, it's a made up word so you can spell it however you want :P

-PIB
January 20, 2005
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:50:43 +0100, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> wrote:

> Paul Bonser wrote:
>
>> I must have had a good English teacher in high school, because such things pain me. (As well as its-it's their-there-they're to-too and a lot (the only proper way is a lot, two separate words, not one)...but I guess I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, too...)
>
> I guess you're not in favor of an "aint" keyword then ? :-)
>
> Or maybe it should use "p is not null", just like in SQL...
>
> Oh, well: !(p is null)
>
> --anders

I like the previously mentioned "p !is null". Would also work with "in", "key !in aa".
January 21, 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 1 character ? :-)
> 
> --anders
> 
> PS.
> I still think that we need 'isnt' for '!=='

We should start using a word for >= and <=, too.

There are perfect words for them in non-computer literature, and in the spoken language as well. They are "at least" and "at most", respectively.

Reading "greater than or equal to" instead of "at least" is like reading "!==" as "Bang equal equal".

As a matter of fact, "at least" and "at most" have direct translations to most human languages in the world. This only shows how intuitive and commonly needed the concept itself is.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home