While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

Walter wrote:

> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
> 
> How about:
>     !is
> ?

Works for me! :)

Lars Ivar Igesund

> How about:
>     !is

That's my choice. Don't forget !in

Walter wrote:
> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
> 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
> the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
> 
> How about:
>     !is
> ?
> 
> 


Not the most beautiful, but I wouldn't argue!  It's a lot better than the alternative.

Are you going to put it in?

-JJR

I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider "not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)




"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
>
> How about:
>     !is
> ?
>
>

I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider "not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)

Hum ... I suppose that could be misinterpreted.

!is does have some kind of Yoda feel to it ... for better or worse



"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
>
> How about:
>     !is
> ?
>
>

Walter wrote:
> While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
> 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
> the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
> 
> How about:
>     !is
> ?

My eyes refuse to parse it. I'm just getting an error while reading 'a not is b' /* a !is b */ :( I need a preprocessor and I'm gonna use 'isnot' or 'aint'... Or I'm gonna stick with !== (unless it becomes deprecated)


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

> "not" ...
>
> if (x is y)
> if (x not y)
>

Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>

Aye; but there's no comma ~ hence no bang. More of a "phuuut" <g>

(society doesn't care for punctuation anymore; boo hoo)



"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r@esi...
> > "not" ...
> >
> > if (x is y)
> > if (x not y)
> >
>
> Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>

In article <d6tgiu$23a5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

I kinda like 'aint' but it would probably confuse the heck out of people outside the US.  They'd probably think it was an integer type :)

>!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider "not" ...
>
>if (x is y)
>if (x not y)
>
>Hum ... I suppose that could be misinterpreted.

Yup.  I read 'not' as unary negation.  Besides, on some level I'd like to allow for the possibility of alternate symbols--so we could have 'and' alias '&&', etc.

>!is does have some kind of Yoda feel to it ... for better or worse

I'll take any symbol so long as it is a binary inverse indentity operator.  The existing !(a is b) is too awkward.


Sean