On 2/22/2022 6:00 PM, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 February 2022 at 22:48:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 2:05 PM, forkit wrote:
>>> no. sorry. but again, you're confused.
>>
>> Please refrain from calling others confused. It's impolite, and besides, there's always the embarassing risk that the caller is confused, not the callee.
> 
> seriously?

I've lived long enough to know that telling someone they are confused never results in a useful outcome.

On 2/22/2022 4:56 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Anyway, it's pretty clear that this won't be in D,
That's right. D's behavior here been universally approved of. I originally thought with the size of this thread that people were going to want to change it, and am glad I was wrong.

On 2/22/2022 5:03 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> vs:   low <= a[2*i+1] && a[2*i+1] <= high

If the expressions do not have side effects, any half decent compiler will not recompute them.

On 23.02.22 05:31, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 5:03 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> vs:   low <= a[2*i+1] && a[2*i+1] <= high
> 
> If the expressions do not have side effects, any half decent compiler will not recompute them.

Definitely, it's mostly a question of readability for me. But it's not a very big deal. (E.g., syntax for tuple unpacking would be significantly more impactful.)

On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 04:27:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> ... D's behavior here been universally approved of. I originally thought with the size of this thread that people were going to want to change it, and am glad I was wrong.

That people don't want it in D, is fine. I have no problem with that.

But you assertion is not correct:

https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/mathematical-operations/#Chaining-comparisons

On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 08:12:52 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 04:27:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> ... D's behavior here been universally approved of. I originally thought with the size of this thread that people were going to want to change it, and am glad I was wrong.
>
> That people don't want it in D, is fine. I have no problem with that.
>
> But you assertion is not correct:
>
> https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/mathematical-operations/#Chaining-comparisons

Programming isn't always 1:1 to mathematics.

On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 08:34:07 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 08:12:52 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 04:27:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> ... D's behavior here been universally approved of. I originally thought with the size of this thread that people were going to want to change it, and am glad I was wrong.
>>
>> That people don't want it in D, is fine. I have no problem with that.
>>
>> But you assertion is not correct:
>>
>> https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/mathematical-operations/#Chaining-comparisons
>
> Programming isn't always 1:1 to mathematics.

Nobody has made that argument.

I just like the idea of being able to express:

i < n && n < x

in a mathmatically concise manner:

i < n < x

As with a lot of syntax in programming languages, of course it can be misused, and it also may require mental effort to master.

btw. C is no stranger to the concept of 'conciseness' ;-)

On Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 04:27:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> ... D's behavior here been universally approved of. I originally thought with the size of this thread that people were going to want to change it, and am glad I was wrong.

a proposal for chaining comparisons in c++

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0893r0.html