Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.

    assert(!(field2 is field));

is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.

On Sun, 1 May 2005 15:36:35 +1000, Matthew wrote:

> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
> 
>     assert(!(field2 is field));
> 
> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.

Exactly! Surely we are not so pedantic to deny the simplicity of ...

     assert(field2 isnot field);

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
1/05/2005 8:41:24 PM

Matthew wrote:
> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
> 
>     assert(!(field2 is field));
> 
> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 

I agree, we have is (which is nice btw), why not isnot?

Matthew wrote:
> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
> 
>     assert(!(field2 is field));
> 
> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
> 

Count my vote for it.

In article <d54edn$u2h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Parker says...
>
>Matthew wrote:
>> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
>> 
>>     assert(!(field2 is field));
>> 
>> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
>> 
>
>Count my vote for it.

Postin' "me too" like some braindead AOLer.  =D

Regards,
James Dunne

>>> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
>>> 
>>>     assert(!(field2 is field));
>>> 
>>> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
>>> 
>>
>>Count my vote for it.
>
>Postin' "me too" like some braindead AOLer.  =D

Just to say I agree such an operator would be nice, though "!is" would be fine as well (and look less strange than "isnot" imho).

In article <d5597d$1m7r$1@digitaldaemon.com>, SeeSchloss says...
>
>>>> 
>>>>     assert(!(field2 is field));
>>
>>Postin' "me too" like some braindead AOLer.  =D
>
>Just to say I agree such an operator would be nice, though "!is" would be fine as well (and look less strange than "isnot" imho).

we could also have "!in" that would be consistent with "!is"

Ant

In article <d51pu5$1vju$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
>
>    assert(!(field2 is field));
>
>is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
>

Count me in too, for the creation of a "isnot" operator.

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

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d51pu5$1vju$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
>
>    assert(!(field2 is field));
>
> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.

For this reason I use x !== y instead of !(x is y). The latter is too hard to read. In some sense it's a pity === didn't stay around since === and !== complement each other nicely. oh well. :-P

Besides "isnot", a "notin" operator would also be nice.


Matthew wrote:
> Let me add my plaintiff plea, based on current practical pain for lack of isnot operator.
> 
>     assert(!(field2 is field));
> 
> is just so awkward to write, and ugly to read.
> 
>