May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to pragma | "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com... > So why stop with 'is'? Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure. |
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote: > "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> So why stop with 'is'? > > Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure. Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 10:34:47 AM |
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote: > > > "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com... > >> So why stop with 'is'? > > > > Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure. > > Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we. That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>. |
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:01:24 -0700, Walter wrote: > "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote: >> >>> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d6tnbr$29e5$1@digitaldaemon.com... >>>> So why stop with 'is'? >>> >>> Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure. >> >> Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we. > > That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>. Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due justification. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 11:04:08 AM |
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | In article <11kxjvwiaop3l$.1gmwm3r9rr3av.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says... > >On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC), pragma wrote: > >> In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r@esi>, Vathix says... >> Allowing the '!' operator to be >> paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way '+=' >> does. >> >> Given the following: >> >> <arg1> !<op> <arg2> >> >> Becomes: >> >> !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>) > >Nice one... though "a !== b" would then mean "!(a == b)" which !is the case >;-) Hey, it was worth a shot, right? - EricAnderton at yahoo |
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'm all for it. Infact, if you were to implement it as "isnot", I would've asked you to make it "!is".
"isnot" is too Pascalish .. I hate Pascal (the language)
|
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | In article <d6tfcc$221o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > >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 >? > 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 :) Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed mnemonic do just as well? Like: if (x is y) if (x ni y) // Monty Python anyone? :) if (x is y) if (x si y) if (x is y) if (x ix y) if (x is y) if (x nis y) if (x is y) if (x ixnay y) -Nod- |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nod | 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. > Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed mnemonic > do just as well? Like: > if (x is y) > if (x ni y) // Monty Python anyone? :) LOL! if (x !! y) // analogous to '==' Or some 'out-there' versions ... if (x nay y) // scottish ? if (x mai y) // thai ? if (x is_not y) // avoid punctuations. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 2:30:15 PM |
May 24, 2005 Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't know how compilers work .. but isn't that the same as !== ?
|
May 24, 2005 Re: !& Re: isnot => !is | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Vathix | 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.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation