May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nod | "Nod" <Nod_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6u84j$2n6n$1@digitaldaemon.com... > if (x is y) > if (x ixnay y) You get my vote for most creative entry! Thanks for the chuckle. |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:ugj7ry3kmdwv$.1x7i3n72g0lmw$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote: > > > In article <d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > > >>How about: > >> !is > > > > That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this > > context, but still :) > > I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing nightmare, and not worth the effort. Not a problem. I wouldn't have proposed it if it was unworkable. It requires an extra lookahead token, but the parser uses lookahead already in several places. |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to J C Calvarese | "J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Looks great to me! > > It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210 I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first! |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | In article <d6umk7$3us$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > > >"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Looks great to me! >> >> It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210 > >I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first! Sorry, I can't take credit for the idea. I'm not sure who first proposed it, but I'm sure it wasn't me. In fact, at least 3 other people mentioned it before I put it on my list. :) spock (ex novice3) Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:45:00 +0000 (UTC) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21126 Anders Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:25:43 +0200 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21167 Pragma #4 on his list (which inspired my list) Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:17:31 +0000 (UTC) http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21174 jcc7 |
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Hasan Aljudy | Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> Vathix wrote:
>
>> How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
>> if(!(x & y)) => if(x !& y)
>>
>> !| would be pretty useless, though.
>
>
> Isn't that called "nand" and um, what's the other one, "nor"?
> they are not exactly useless, they are aobut as useless as & and | anyway.
Mathematically (!x | !y) is the same as !(x & y) and proposed (x !& y).
IMO having multiple redundant operators doesn't make the readability
much better. Are there any good arguments for the proposed logical (not
is & and) operators?
Jari-Matti
|
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:44:29 -0700, Walter wrote: > "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:193ee48yh511k.1cixoutbwq6i6.dlg@40tude.net... >> Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due justification. > > I am asking for feedback on this, but at some point, somebody's just gotta decide. Duh! Of course. But upon what principles are such decisions being based on? Gut-feel? "I don't know much about art but I know what I like"? Consensus? Scoring? Conformance to the published goals for D? etc .. ... -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 7:58:20 PM |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kris | Kris wrote:
> 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)
>>>
I Like this Kris!
-DavidM
|
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | Walter wrote: > "J C Calvarese" <technocrat7@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d6udg9$2soq$1@digitaldaemon.com... > >>Looks great to me! >> >>It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) >>http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21210 > > > I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and > couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first! > > noooooooo I thought about it first!!! http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/22977 actually, if you look at the dates, his is older than mine :'( ah well. |
May 24, 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
> ?
>
I've just read most of this thread. Everytime I see "isnot" I read and pronounce it as "is not". After a while, knowing what the keyword means and how to say it, I can't see "isnot" as anything _but_ "is not". My point is that although you can think of it as "I snot", in practice I personally don't parse it as such.
Every time I see "!is", well I don't really know how to say it. Certainly, I don't make the (click)is sound! I think that it is important to be able to speak easily about constructs (especially when explaining the code to another). I guess what I am trying to say is that for me "isnot" parses through my brain far more smoothly than "!is".
All that said, I favour "a !is b" over "(!(a is b))", but I think my favourite would be "a isnot b"
Thanks
Brad
|
May 24, 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. "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one) Of course, it should probably be spelled "isn't" to be 100% accurate... > How about: > !is > ? Q: Does this mean that === and !== are going to be deprecated/removed ? Or is the D language big enough to have two tokens for the same thing. --anders |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation