Thread overview | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
May 23, 2005 isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
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 ? |
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | 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
|
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | > How about:
> !is
That's my choice. Don't forget !in
|
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | 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
|
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | 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 > ? > > |
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | 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 > ? > > |
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | 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 +/ |
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kris | > "not" ...
>
> if (x is y)
> if (x not y)
>
Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>
|
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Vathix | 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" :>
|
May 23, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kris | 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 |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation