On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:35:52 -0400, parabolis wrote:

> teqDruid wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:28:06 -0400, parabolis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>teqDruid wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 07:47:23 -0700, Andy Friesen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ola Frid <olafrid atyay dtek.chalmers otday se> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any chance of adding a boolean exclusive or? Like ^^?
>>>>>>It's a thing that too many programming languages lack, in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fewer than you think!
>>>>>
>>>>>We usually call it !=
>>>>>
>>>>>:)
>>>>>
>>>>> -- andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But that only works if you're actually comparing booleans, so something like:
>>>>
>>>>a.opEquals(b) != c.opEquals(d)
>>>>isn't necessarily the same as
>>>>(a.opEquals(b) == true) != (c.opEquals(d) == true) // <- amended
>>>>whereas since ^^ is a boolean comparison,
>>>>a.opEquals(b) ^^ c.opEquals(d)
>>>>should compare the same.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you create a class and overload the opEquals operator and return a byte/ubyte/int/uint/long/ulong instead of type bit. Of course you can also overload the opEquals with return type Object...
>>>
>>>Sadlly the compiler does not seem to be consistent about not being able to convert an int to a bit.
>> 
>> 
>> True... But in fact Object.opEquals returns int... But my point remains the same, when comparing ints, != is not ^^.
> 
> No but ^ is ^^ when comparing ints ;)

Yeah, but saying that ^^ is called != is incorrect.  I'm not saying that the language doesn't have the capability.

teqDruid wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:35:52 -0400, parabolis wrote:
> 
>>teqDruid wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:28:06 -0400, parabolis wrote:
>>>
>>>>teqDruid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 07:47:23 -0700, Andy Friesen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ola Frid <olafrid atyay dtek.chalmers otday se> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any chance of adding a boolean exclusive or? Like ^^?
>>>>>>>It's a thing that too many programming languages lack, in my opinion.

> Yeah, but saying that ^^ is called != is incorrect.  I'm not saying that
> the language doesn't have the capability.

True but I took Ola Frid's comments as suggesting that.

teqDruid wrote:
>>>True... But in fact Object.opEquals returns int... But my point remains
>>>the same, when comparing ints, != is not ^^.
>>
>>No but ^ is ^^ when comparing ints ;)
> 
> 
> Yeah, but saying that ^^ is called != is incorrect.  I'm not saying that
> the language doesn't have the capability.

Now that you mention it, it DOES seem strange to have an operator just to let us write cast(bool)(a) & cast(bool)(b)

 -- andy