January 21, 2005
Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!

The easiest is probably "isnot",
if !== indeed is deprecated now ?

It seems logical, since "is" has
already superseded the old "===" ?


AFAIK, it's a very simple patch.
(see attachment, vs. DMD 0.111)


Then again, the "politics" are not...
Especially since it could violate a
US patent of Microsoft's: #20040230959

> A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.


Walter, you decide.
--anders

PS. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/




January 21, 2005
Are patents case-sensitive?

L.


January 21, 2005
From http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

"2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler."

Is DMD a "BASIC-derived programming language compiler" ?

(I'm not flooding. Any patent claim would seriously hurt D)

L.


January 21, 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Since all of these have problems:
>     isnt
>     isn't
>     aint
>     ain't
>     is not
>     is!
> 
> The easiest is probably "isnot",
> if !== indeed is deprecated now ?
> 

I suggested this in another thread but perhaps it is more pertinent here. I would suggest making use of the '≡' html entity which gives us ≡≡ for 'is' and !≡ for isnot/isnt/!==. I suspect D 2.0 will struggle with all the english based keywords in the future since Unicode support really suggests supporting multiple languages.
January 21, 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:

> Since all of these have problems:
>      isnt
>      isn't
>      aint
>      ain't
>      is not
>      is!
> 
I missed discussion about those problems. Can somebody point me a reasons
(link maybe)? And what about "!is" (just asking)?

Regards,
-- 
Dawid Ciężarkiewicz | arael
jid: arael@fov.pl
January 21, 2005
Dawid Ciężarkiewicz wrote:

>>Since all of these have problems:
>>     isnt
>>     isn't
>>     aint
>>     ain't
>>     is not
>>     is!
> 
> I missed discussion about those problems. Can somebody point me
> a reasons (link maybe)? And what about "!is" (just asking)?

"isnt" and "aint" are informal, the others use funny characters...
(quotes, spaces, and exclamation marks are not allowed in keywords)

"not is" does not make much sense? Not more than "is not", anyway.
One possibility is "~is", though. (using same rationale as "~this")

--anders
January 21, 2005
isnot gets my vote

As for MS, well, what can one possibly say to the idea of patenting a keyword? This world stinks, and it's getting smellier by the day.

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:csqprc$2lfn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Since all of these have problems:
>     isnt
>     isn't
>     aint
>     ain't
>     is not
>     is!
>
> The easiest is probably "isnot",
> if !== indeed is deprecated now ?
>
> It seems logical, since "is" has
> already superseded the old "===" ?
>
>
> AFAIK, it's a very simple patch.
> (see attachment, vs. DMD 0.111)
>
>
> Then again, the "politics" are not...
> Especially since it could violate a
> US patent of Microsoft's: #20040230959
>
>> A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.
>
>
> Walter, you decide.
> --anders
>
> PS. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> --- dmd-0.111/dmd/src/dmd/lexer.c.orig Tue Dec 21 13:47:50 2004
> +++ dmd-0.111/dmd/src/dmd/lexer.c Fri Jan 21 12:25:00 2005
> @@ -1940,6 +1940,7 @@
>     { "function", TOKfunction },
>
>     { "is", TOKidentity },
> +    { "isnot", TOKnotidentity },
>     { "if", TOKif },
>     { "else", TOKelse },
>     { "while", TOKwhile },
> @@ -2038,7 +2039,7 @@
>     Token::tochars[TOKequal] = "==";
>     Token::tochars[TOKnotequal] = "!=";
> //    Token::tochars[TOKidentity] = "===";
> -    Token::tochars[TOKnotidentity] = "!==";
> +//    Token::tochars[TOKnotidentity] = "!==";
>
>     Token::tochars[TOKunord] = "!<>=";
>     Token::tochars[TOKue] = "!<>";
> 


January 21, 2005
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> From http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
> 
> "2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler."
> 
> Is DMD a "BASIC-derived programming language compiler" ?
> 
> (I'm not flooding. Any patent claim would seriously hurt D)
> 
> L. 
> 
> 

Seems to me that D is Java, C, C++, and C# derived...none of which are really basic derived, right?

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch
February 20, 2005
Anders says...
>
>Since all of these have problems:
>     isnt
>     isn't
>     aint
>     ain't
>     is not
>     is!
>
>The easiest is probably "isnot",

What about just plain "not" ?

Geoff


February 20, 2005
Geoff Speicher wrote:

>>Since all of these have problems:
>>    isnt
>>    isn't
>>    aint
>>    ain't
>>    is not
>>    is!
>>
>>The easiest is probably "isnot",
> 
> What about just plain "not" ?

"not" would be more reasonable as a transcript of '!',
but not really logical as a replacement for '!==' ?

Not that it matters, since there probably won't be *any*
replacement for TOKnotidentity whatsoever once !== is gone.

--anders
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home