Hi!
I'v been remotely following D's evolution.
Now that D.0174 no longer allows '===' and '!==' operator (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0174), what replaces '!=='?  Is it '!is' ?  Is '!in' allowed?

BTW, the lexical page (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html) still lists '===' and '!==' in the list of tokens.

Thanks

- P.R.

Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> Hi!
> I'v been remotely following D's evolution.
> Now that D.0174 no longer allows '===' and '!==' operator (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0174), what replaces '!=='?  Is it '!is' ?  Is '!in' allowed?
> 
> BTW, the lexical page (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html) still lists '===' and '!==' in the list of tokens.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> - P.R.


What's New for D 0.126
Jun 7, 2005

=== now deprecated, replaced with is
!== now deprecated, replaced with !is

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog1.html#new0126


-- 
jcc7

Justin C Calvarese wrote:

> Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>> Now that D.0174 no longer allows '===' and '!==' operator (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0174), what replaces '!=='?  Is it '!is' ?  Is '!in' allowed?
>>
>> BTW, the lexical page (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html) still lists '===' and '!==' in the list of tokens.
> 
> What's New for D 0.126
> Jun 7, 2005
> 
> === now deprecated, replaced with is
> !== now deprecated, replaced with !is
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog1.html#new0126
> 
> 
Thanks, should have looked in 'older versions' link...

So this also means that   '!in'   never made it?

--

P.R.

Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> Justin C Calvarese wrote:
> 
>> Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>>
>>> Now that D.0174 no longer allows '===' and '!==' operator (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0174), what replaces '!=='?  Is it '!is' ?  Is '!in' allowed?
>>>
>>> BTW, the lexical page (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html) still lists '===' and '!==' in the list of tokens.
>>
>>
>> What's New for D 0.126
>> Jun 7, 2005
>>
>> === now deprecated, replaced with is
>> !== now deprecated, replaced with !is
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog1.html#new0126
>>
>>
> Thanks, should have looked in 'older versions' link...
> 
> So this also means that   '!in'   never made it?
> 
> -- 
> 
> P.R.

No, it didn't... but I'm also not sure how it ought to work, or even be strictly neccessary, as the standard behavior of opIn is to return a pointer.  Simply checking the result of opIn against null is the same.  Yes, yes, so its one more operator... all well.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls