if(file1 in map2)
            {
            }
            else
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

works ok, but

            if(file1 not in map2)
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

fails, as does

            if(not file1 in map2)
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

the only other one that works is

            if(!(file1 in map2))
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

I like the second form. Can we have that?

Matthew

While it was 6/2/04 7:14 am throughout the UK, Matthew Wilson sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

<snip>
>             if(file1 not in map2)
>             {
>                 printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
>             }
> 
> fails
<snip>
> I like the second form. Can we have that?

I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, then we might as well allow such expressions as

	qwert not == yuiop
	asdfg not || hjkl

etc.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>             if(file1 not in map2)
>> I like the second form. Can we have that?
> 
> 
> I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, then we might as well allow such expressions as
> 
>     qwert not == yuiop
>     asdfg not || hjkl

Hmmm. Somehow, this doesn't quite fit into the language.

Why not using the "normal" way for C-based languages? I.e.

if(a !in b)


Hauke

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c00bc1$12jt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> While it was 6/2/04 7:14 am throughout the UK, Matthew Wilson sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
>
> <snip>
> >             if(file1 not in map2)
> >             {
> >                 printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
> >             }
> >
> > fails
> <snip>
> > I like the second form. Can we have that?
>
> I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, then we might as well allow such expressions as
>
> qwert not == yuiop
> asdfg not || hjkl

I don't see that that follows. What has == got to do with the "in" operator?

"Hauke Duden" <H.NS.Duden@gmx.net> wrote in message news:c00eoq$1870$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> >>             if(file1 not in map2)
> >> I like the second form. Can we have that?
> >
> >
> > I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, then we might as well allow such expressions as
> >
> >     qwert not == yuiop
> >     asdfg not || hjkl
>
> Hmmm. Somehow, this doesn't quite fit into the language.
>
> Why not using the "normal" way for C-based languages? I.e.
>
> if(a !in b)

That would be fine.

While it was 6/2/04 8:59 pm throughout the UK, Matthew sprinkled little
black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
<snip>
>> qwert not == yuiop
>> asdfg not || hjkl
> 
> 
> I don't see that that follows. What has == got to do with the "in"
> operator?

Comparatively little.  But plenty in common:
- both are binary operators
- both evaluate to a boolean value

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.