April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | Anders F Björklund wrote: > Norbert Nemec wrote: > >> Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer >> should therefore understand !in or !is. >> >> Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable >> when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in >> the way for everyday use. > > Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable? I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with some international fonts. > I know many people that prefer 'not' over '!', 'and' over '&&', etc etc. > > Originally I didn't see a problem of adding them as alternative syntax, but now I know that it would somehow mean the D originals have to go... > > So requiring '!is' is bad enough, without making it 'not is' - or worse. > It isn't very beautiful, but then I don't think that was a design goal ? > > --anders |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | Anders F Björklund wrote:
> S. Chancellor wrote:
>
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too.
>
> I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ?
>
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example:
>>
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
>
> But this just looks just as horrible ?
>
> Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax
> was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ?
>
> I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned.
>
> --anders
And that would be a resounding NO.
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Don Clugston | Don Clugston wrote:
>> Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?
>
> I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with some international fonts.
Yes, I guess that would qualify as "unreadable" when using such a font.
:-)
--anders
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to S. Chancellor | S. Chancellor wrote: > I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I don't. I actually quite like it. > I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. I sure hope it doesn't. |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Mike Parker | Mike Parker wrote:
> S. Chancellor wrote:
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.
>
> I don't. I actually quite like it.
>
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators.
>
> I sure hope it doesn't.
I agree with Mike here. On both accounts.
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Regan Heath | On 2006-04-03 22:24:39 -0700, "Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> said:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:34:24 -0700, S. Chancellor <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too.
>
> I like !in and !is.
>
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators.
>
> I don't like it.
>
> - It's more typing.
> - "!" already means "not" to me (in this context).
> - I read "!is" as "not is" and can't see an advantage to having "is not" instead. (I don't see why it has to be correct english)
>
> Regan
!is is ugly and hard to read, code is supposed to be beautiful.
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | On 2006-04-03 22:59:59 -0700, "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> said:
> "S. Chancellor" <dnewsgr@mephit.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message news:e0spgo$2jvr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
>
> Ew.
>
>> Foo not == Bar
>> Foo not <= Bar
>
> How about
>
> Foo not equal to Bar
> Foo not less than or equal to Bar
>
> While you're at it? ;)
>
> Terseness is both a curse and a blessing of C-style syntax...
I didn't say I wanted to program in AppleScript. :P I hate mixing symbols and words. This is terrible. I'd rather redefine all the equal set and comparison operators. The whole point of the is-operator is equivalence, unfortunately there's no triple bar symbol.
-S.
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Norbert Nemec | On 2006-04-03 23:29:54 -0700, Norbert Nemec <Norbert@Nemec-online.de> said: > Sorry, I don't agree. != has been in C for ages and any C programmer > should therefore understand !in or !is. > > Unlike in natural language text, source code does ! become more readable > when using words. It may slightly help the newbie, but it will get in > the way for everyday use. > > The problem of Perl, for example, is not that it uses cryptic operators, > but that it uses too many, so that it takes a long time to know all of > them. the die-hard Perl users love that because it really improves > productivity, but any outsider is left in the rain. > > For D, it is important to find the right measure which lies somewhere in > between Perl and Cobol: > http://www.csis.ul.ie/COBOL/Exercises/Exm-AcmeStockReorder/Prg-AcmeStockReorder.htm The > issue !is that !is is ! easy to understand, the issue is that it's a bad solution to an artificial problem. Have word based operators, or don't. The reason 'is' was picked is it's used in other languages for equivalence. I don't see !is anywhere. If we're not going to stick with the standard solution why not go to some other symbol for equivalence. Hell, we could just write : Foo # Bar Foo @ Bar Not to mention that i's and !'s should never be next to each other: !i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i -S. |
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | On 2006-04-04 01:46:01 -0700, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> said:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>
>>> Ehrm, wasn't '===' changed to 'is' exactly because it was more readable?
>>
>> I thought it was because === was almost indistinguishable from == with some international fonts.
>
> Yes, I guess that would qualify as "unreadable" when using such a font.
>
> :-)
>
> --anders
!is is pretty hard to read to me. I hate having the ! next to the i.
|
April 04, 2006 Re: not operator operator.. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | On 2006-04-04 00:06:06 -0700, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se> said:
> S. Chancellor wrote:
>
>> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax. I think a lot of other people do too.
>
> I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ?
>
>> I propose that the word not, become an operator on operators. For example:
>>
>> Foo not is null
>> Foo not in Bar
>
> But this just looks just as horrible ?
>
> Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax
> was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ?
>
> I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned.
>
> --anders
I liked the other syntax better. But this isn't perl, there shouldn't aliased operators. IMO.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation