View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer
>> should therefore understand !in or !is.
>>
>> Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable
>> when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in
>> the way for everyday use.
> 
> Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?

I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with 
some international fonts.

> I know many people that prefer 'not' over '!', 'and' over '&&', etc etc.
> 
> Originally I didn't see a problem of adding them as alternative syntax, 
> but now I know that it would somehow mean the D originals have to go...
> 
> So requiring '!is' is bad enough, without making it 'not is' - or worse.
> It isn't very beautiful, but then I don't think that was a design goal ?
> 
> --anders
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> S. Chancellor wrote:
> 
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.   I think a lot of other 
>> people do too.
> 
> I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ?
> 
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators.  For 
>> example:
>>
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
> 
> But this just looks just as horrible ?
> 
> Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax
> was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ?
> 
> I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned.
> 
> --anders

And that would be a resounding NO.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Don Clugston wrote:

>> Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?
> 
> I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with 
> some international fonts.

Yes, I guess that would qualify as "unreadable" when using such a font.

:-)

--anders
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
S. Chancellor wrote:
> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.

I don't. I actually quite like it.

> I propose that the word not, become an operator on 
> operators. 

I sure hope it doesn't.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Mike Parker wrote:

> S. Chancellor wrote:
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.
> 
> I don't. I actually quite like it.
> 
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on
>> operators.
> 
> I sure hope it doesn't.

I agree with Mike here. On both accounts.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On 2006-04-03 22:24:39 -0700, "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> said:

> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:34:24 -0700, S. Chancellor  
> <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.   I think a lot of other  
>> people do too.
> 
> I like !in and !is.
> 
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators.
> 
> I don't like it.
> 
> - It's more typing.
> - "!" already means "not" to me (in this context).
> - I read "!is" as "not is" and can't see an advantage to having "is 
> not"  instead. (I don't see why it has to be correct english)
> 
> Regan

!is is ugly and hard to read, code is supposed to be beautiful.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On 2006-04-03 22:59:59 -0700, "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> said:

> "S. Chancellor" <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message 
> news:e0spgo$2jvr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
> 
> Ew.
> 
>> Foo not == Bar
>> Foo not <= Bar
> 
> How about
> 
> Foo not equal to Bar
> Foo not less than or equal to Bar
> 
> While you're at it?  ;)
> 
> Terseness is both a curse and a blessing of C-style syntax...

I didn't say I wanted to program in AppleScript. :P  I hate mixing 
symbols and words.  This is terrible.  I'd rather redefine all the 
equal set and comparison operators.  The whole point of the is-operator 
is equivalence, unfortunately there's no triple bar symbol.

-S.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On 2006-04-03 23:29:54 -0700, Norbert Nemec <Norbert@Nemec-online.de> said:

> Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer
> should therefore understand !in or !is.
> 
> Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable
> when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in
> the way for everyday use.
> 
> The problem of Perl, for example, is not that it uses cryptic operators,
> but that it uses too many, so that it takes a long time to know all of
> them. the die-hard Perl users love that because it really improves
> productivity, but any outsider is left in the rain.
> 
> For D, it is important to find the right measure which lies somewhere in
> between Perl and Cobol:
> http://www.csis.ul.ie/COBOL/Exercises/Exm-AcmeStockReorder/Prg-AcmeStockReorder.htm

The 
> 
issue !is that !is is ! easy to understand, the issue is that it's a 
bad solution to an artificial problem.   Have word based operators, or 
don't.   The reason 'is' was picked is it's used in other languages for 
equivalence.  I don't see !is anywhere.  If we're not going to stick 
with the standard solution why not go to some other symbol for 
equivalence.   Hell, we could just write :

Foo # Bar
Foo @ Bar

Not to mention that i's and !'s should never be next to each other:

!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i

-S.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On 2006-04-04 01:46:01 -0700, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> said:

> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>>> Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?
>> 
>> I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with 
>> some international fonts.
> 
> Yes, I guess that would qualify as "unreadable" when using such a font.
> 
> :-)
> 
> --anders

!is is pretty hard to read to me.  I hate having the ! next to the i.
April 04, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On 2006-04-04 00:06:06 -0700, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> said:

> S. Chancellor wrote:
> 
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.   I think a lot of other 
>> people do too.
> 
> I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ?
> 
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators.  For example:
>> 
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
> 
> But this just looks just as horrible ?
> 
> Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax
> was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ?
> 
> I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned.
> 
> --anders

I liked the other syntax better.  But this isn't perl, there shouldn't 
aliased operators. IMO.
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home