> Recap of what I propose:
> 
> Get rid of: 'null', 'true', 'false', '!', '!==', 'is'
> Add:        'not', 'isnull', 'nullify', 'truthify', 'falsify'
> 

Sorry, doesn't get my vote (not that this is a democracy :) - I don't like that syntax at all.

Brad

THAT'S IT!!  I have it with all of these keywords!!!!
I'm coming up with MY OWN language called:

E()


In article <d754a6$2tpu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Beveridge says...
>
>
>> Recap of what I propose:
>> 
>> Get rid of: 'null', 'true', 'false', '!', '!==', 'is'
>> Add:        'not', 'isnull', 'nullify', 'truthify', 'falsify'
>> 
>
>Sorry, doesn't get my vote (not that this is a democracy :) - I don't like that syntax at all.
>
>Brad

Sam wrote:
> Ok then why not put 'isnull' and 'nullify' into a namespace or make them
> built-in?
> 
> Then:
> 
> if(isnull(a))
> ..
> else
> nullify(a);
> 
> Granted it's not as small as the syntax with 'is' and 'null', but this
> eliminates the need for 'is' and 'null'.
> You see, to me my way is simpler:
> 
> if(isnull(a)) // 1 isnull method, 1 argument
> if(a is null) // 1 is operator, 2 arguments (1 special keyword)
> 
> nullify(a) // 1 method, 1 argument
> a = null   // 1 operator, 2 arguments (1 special keyword)
> 
> if(!isnull(a)) // 1 ! operator, 1 isnull method, 1 argument
> if(a !== null) // 1 !== operator, 2 arguments (1 special keyword)
> 
> 
> I am for a 'not' keyword though!!  It's better than this '!' that carried over
> from c++!
> 
> Recap of what I propose:
> 
> Get rid of: 'null', 'true', 'false', '!', '!==', 'is'
> Add:        'not', 'isnull', 'nullify', 'truthify', 'falsify'
> 
> ;-D
> 

Sorry, doesn't get my vote.
Note that this is NOT Java, D is a systems programming language, not a scripting language or smalltalk. (note: I'm not implying that java is a scripting language)

BUT ...

You can always write the functions yourself ..

bool isnull( void *p )
{
    return (p is null);
}

void nullify(out void *p)
{
    p = null;
}

What's the problem with that? Why don't you write that yourself and stop using null if you don't like it?

But see you've already gotten in trouble with the 'null' keyword!

You can't do:

a = null;

or

if(a == null)

So as you see, it just spreads confusion!

C++ is a systems language and it had no 'null' keyword, and nobody complained! Some defined their own null constant.

I know D isn't C++ either, but if you're trying to invent the perfect language, the perfect language at least in my opinion wouldn't have the 'null' keyword.

I know C# and java have 'true', 'false', and 'null' keywords but I truly believe that they added them in purely for show and to make their languages look nice.

cout << null; // Exception!

In article <d755f4$2usp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
>
>Sorry, doesn't get my vote.
>Note that this is NOT Java, D is a systems programming language, not a
>scripting language or smalltalk. (note: I'm not implying that java is a
>scripting language)
>
>BUT ...
>
>You can always write the functions yourself ..
>
>bool isnull( void *p )
>{
>     return (p is null);
>}
>
>void nullify(out void *p)
>{
>     p = null;
>}
>
>What's the problem with that? Why don't you write that yourself and stop using null if you don't like it?

Sam wrote:
> But see you've already gotten in trouble with the 'null' keyword!
> 
> You can't do:
> 
> a = null;

No ? Why ?


> I know C# and java have 'true', 'false', and 'null' keywords but I truly believe
> that they added them in purely for show and to make their languages look nice.

Ok, you asked for it... Here it comes... WTF ?!


> cout << null; // Exception!

Exception ? It's C++. If null was #define'd to 0, it would print... "0", not raise an exception...


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Sam wrote:
> But see you've already gotten in trouble with the 'null' keyword!
> 
> You can't do:
> 
> a = null;
> 
> or
> 
> if(a == null)
Where is the trouble if you are wrapping it? of course you HAVE to use it inside the function that wraps it .. what else would you expect?

> 
> So as you see, it just spreads confusion!
I don't see that. Where is the confusion?
remember, you're probably the one who's gonna use "isnull" and "nullify" :P

> 
> C++ is a systems language and it had no 'null' keyword, and nobody complained!
> Some defined their own null constant.


heh .. so are you saying D shouldn't have a 0?

I know you're not saying that, but if %99 percent of the people will define an alias for 'null' to zero, then what's the point?
The only way we could do what you want is to remove 0 alltogether.


> 
> I know D isn't C++ either, but if you're trying to invent the perfect language,
> the perfect language at least in my opinion wouldn't have the 'null' keyword.
Why? huh? Why?
just because /you/ don't like it?


> 
> I know C# and java have 'true', 'false', and 'null' keywords but I truly believe
> that they added them in purely for show and to make their languages look nice.

I don't know about C#, but in Java, true and false are not aliases for 0 and 1.
0 and 1 are integers, true and false are booleans, you CANNOT implicitly convert ints to booleans in Java.
So it's not just for the language to look nice .. it's *strong* typing.
Also, null in java is *NOT* an alias for 0, infact, you can't compare references against null.

[Java code:]
Object x; //x is a reference, not an object
if( x == 0 ) //compiler error: x is not an int.
.....
[/Java code]

> cout << null; // Exception!

what the other guy said ..
<< is overloaded (I assume) for different types, so it's not like << expects objects.
when you pass a null, it's not a null pointer, it's a 0 integer.

> 
> In article <d755f4$2usp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
> 
>>Sorry, doesn't get my vote.
>>Note that this is NOT Java, D is a systems programming language, not a scripting language or smalltalk. (note: I'm not implying that java is a scripting language)
>>
>>BUT ...
>>
>>You can always write the functions yourself ..
>>
>>bool isnull( void *p )
>>{
>>    return (p is null);
>>}
>>
>>void nullify(out void *p)
>>{
>>    p = null;
>>}
>>
>>What's the problem with that? Why don't you write that yourself and stop using null if you don't like it?
> 
> 
> 

ouch, typo:

I wrote:
> Also, null in java is *NOT* an alias for 0, infact, you can't compare references against null.
I meant: "you can't compare references against 0"

Sam wrote:
> Recap of what I propose:
> 
> Get rid of: 'null', 'true', 'false', '!', '!==', 'is'
> Add:        'not', 'isnull', 'nullify', 'truthify', 'falsify'

> The less keywords a language has, the simpler it bacomes and the easier it is to
> learn.


So you propose a removal of 4 simple and short keywords and two operators and want to add 5 new keywords, some of which I'd wonder if are valid English words at all. That will make the language definitely easier to learn!

What's next ? Are you gonna tell us to remove char, wchar and dchar because they are sooooo redundant and then suggest adding char8859_1, char8859_2, char8859_3, charXXX, etc ? :\


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/