for example how often do we use constructs like

if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )

simplified:
if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )

if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )

simplified:
if( [a && b && c] >= h )

(just an idea)

ciao dennis

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:04:21 +1000, dennis luehring <dl.soluz@gmx.net> wrote:

> for example how often do we use constructs like
>
> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>
> simplified:
> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>
> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>
> simplified:
> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>
> (just an idea)

A good one too, in my opinion. The || symbol would also be useful.

  if ( [a || b || c] >= h )

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:04:21 +1000, dennis luehring <dl.soluz@gmx.net>  wrote:
> 
>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>>
>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>>
>> simplified:
>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>>
>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>>
>> simplified:
>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>>
>> (just an idea)
> 
> 
> A good one too, in my opinion. The || symbol would also be useful.
> 
>   if ( [a || b || c] >= h )

or think of

if( [a || b || c ] >= [ h && b ] )

"dennis luehring" <dl.soluz@gmx.net> wrote in message news:e1ekp6$jr7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> for example how often do we use constructs like
>
> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>
> simplified:
> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>
> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>
> simplified:
> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>
> (just an idea)
>
> ciao dennis
Considering that you can't have multiple assignments to a variable, if you had that many possible OR conditions,, couldn't you just use a combined switch like so:

switch(x)
{
  case 10:
  case 20:
  case 30:
    ...
  default:
    break;
}
This still leaves open the issue of multiple variables though; what you
suggest may work.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:24:14 +0200, dennis luehring wrote:

> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:04:21 +1000, dennis luehring <dl.soluz@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>>>
>>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>>>
>>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>>>
>>> (just an idea)
>> 
>> A good one too, in my opinion. The || symbol would also be useful.
>> 
>>   if ( [a || b || c] >= h )
> 
> or think of
> 
> if( [a || b || c ] >= [ h && b ] )

Not sure what that would mean ... is it ...

  if ( (a >= h || b >= h || c => h) && ((a >= b || b >= b || c => b)))

OR

  if ( (a >= h && a >= b) || (b => h && b >= b) || (c => h && c >= b) )

I think the idea should be kept at one '[...]' group only and one of '&&','||' per group ( that is ... don't mix && and || inside the [] ).

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
11/04/2006 9:57:47 AM

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:18:55 -0400, Ameer Armaly wrote:

> "dennis luehring" <dl.soluz@gmx.net> wrote in message news:e1ekp6$jr7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>>
>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>>
>> simplified:
>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>>
>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>>
>> simplified:
>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>>
>> (just an idea)
>>
>> ciao dennis
> Considering that you can't have multiple assignments to a variable, if you had that many possible OR conditions,, couldn't you just use a combined switch like so:
> 
> switch(x)
> {
>   case 10:
>   case 20:
>   case 30:
>     ...
>   default:
>     break;
> }
> This still leaves open the issue of multiple variables though; what you
> suggest may work.

The problem with 'switch' is it requires literals or consts. One can't do ...

  switch (h)
  {
     case a:
     case b:
     case c:
         ...
         break;
     default: break;
  }

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
11/04/2006 10:01:40 AM

dennis luehring wrote:
> for example how often do we use constructs like
> 
> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
> 
> simplified:
> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
> 
> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
> 
> simplified:
> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
> 
> (just an idea)
> 
> ciao dennis

I've always wanted something like this!!!! but I think the proposed syntax might not fit very well with the D grammar.

hmm, come to think of it, maybe it can already be implemented with templates.

so,

if( x == 10 || x == 20 || x == 30 )

becomes:
if( equals!(x).anyOf( 10, 20, 30 ) )

or something like that!

any template guru up to it?

On a side note: the expression( x == 10 && x == 20 && x == 30 ) is rediclious, it's always false ;)

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:03:57 -0600, Hasan Aljudy wrote:

> dennis luehring wrote:
>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>> 
>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>> 
>> simplified:
>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>> 
>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>> 
>> simplified:
>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>> 
>> (just an idea)
>> 
>> ciao dennis
> 
> I've always wanted something like this!!!! but I think the proposed syntax might not fit very well with the D grammar.
> 
> hmm, come to think of it, maybe it can already be implemented with templates.
> 
> so,
> 
> if( x == 10 || x == 20 || x == 30 )
> 
> becomes:
> if( equals!(x).anyOf( 10, 20, 30 ) )
> 
> or something like that!
> 
> any template guru up to it?
> 
> On a side note: the expression( x == 10 && x == 20 && x == 30 ) is rediclious, it's always false ;)

Try not using literals ... ;-)

The expression( x == a && x == b && x == c ) is not always false.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
11/04/2006 10:15:53 AM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:noyfbcyf3t01$.m2gl86mb13se.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:18:55 -0400, Ameer Armaly wrote:
>
>> "dennis luehring" <dl.soluz@gmx.net> wrote in message news:e1ekp6$jr7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> for example how often do we use constructs like
>>>
>>> if( x ==  10 && x == 20 && x == 30 )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( x == [10 && 20 && 30] )
>>>
>>> if( a >= h && b >= h && c >= h )
>>>
>>> simplified:
>>> if( [a && b && c] >= h )
>>>
>>> (just an idea)
>>>
>>> ciao dennis
>> Considering that you can't have multiple assignments to a variable, if
>> you
>> had that many possible OR conditions,, couldn't you just use a combined
>> switch like so:
>>
>> switch(x)
>> {
>>   case 10:
>>   case 20:
>>   case 30:
>>     ...
>>   default:
>>     break;
>> }
>> This still leaves open the issue of multiple variables though; what you
>> suggest may work.
>
> The problem with 'switch' is it requires literals or consts. One can't do ...
>
>  switch (h)
>  {
>     case a:
>     case b:
>     case c:
>         ...
>         break;
>     default: break;
>  }
>
That's true.  In such a case I think that the above proposal might work, or perhaps the templates that Hasan suggested.
> -- 
> Derek
> (skype: derek.j.parnell)
> Melbourne, Australia
> "Down with mediocracy!"
> 11/04/2006 10:01:40 AM

> I've always wanted something like this!!!! but I think the proposed syntax might not fit very well with the D grammar.

another idea

> hmm, come to think of it, maybe it can already be implemented with templates.

oh no! what we need is more syntactic sugar - not another boost library (hell) :-)

> so,
> 
> if( x == 10 || x == 20 || x == 30 )
> 
> becomes:
> if( equals!(x).anyOf( 10, 20, 30 ) )
> 
> or something like that!
> 
> any template guru up to it?
> 
> On a side note: the expression( x == 10 && x == 20 && x == 30 ) is rediclious, it's always false ;)

example version 2:

if( x == a && x == b && x == c )

=>

if( x == [a && b && c] )

--> or maybe even "if( x == [a,b,c](&&))"
but this goes a little bit to fast into the "how can we integrate vector stuff" direction...

ciao dennis