• "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Feb 05 2004
• Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Feb 06 2004
• Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> Feb 06 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 06 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 06 2004
• Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Feb 09 2004

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

            if(file1 in map2)
            {
            }
            else
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

works ok, but

            if(file1 not in map2)
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

fails, as does

            if(not file1 in map2)
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

the only other one that works is

            if(!(file1 in map2))
            {
                printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
            }

I like the second form. Can we have that?

Matthew

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

While it was 6/2/04 7:14 am throughout the UK, Matthew Wilson sprinkled 
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

<snip>
             if(file1 not in map2)
             {
                 printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
             }
 
 fails


 I like the second form. Can we have that?


I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such 
compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, 
then we might as well allow such expressions as

	qwert not == yuiop
	asdfg not || hjkl

etc.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
             if(file1 not in map2)
 I like the second form. Can we have that?


 
 I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such 
 compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this, 
 then we might as well allow such expressions as
 
     qwert not == yuiop
     asdfg not || hjkl


Hmmm. Somehow, this doesn't quite fit into the language.

Why not using the "normal" way for C-based languages? I.e.

if(a !in b)


Hauke

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Hauke Duden" <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> wrote in message
news:c00eoq$1870$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
             if(file1 not in map2)
 I like the second form. Can we have that?



 I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such
 compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this,
 then we might as well allow such expressions as

     qwert not == yuiop
     asdfg not || hjkl


 Hmmm. Somehow, this doesn't quite fit into the language.

 Why not using the "normal" way for C-based languages? I.e.

 if(a !in b)


That would be fine.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c00bc1$12jt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 While it was 6/2/04 7:14 am throughout the UK, Matthew Wilson sprinkled
 little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

 <snip>
             if(file1 not in map2)
             {
                 printf("  %.*s\n", file1);
             }

 fails


 I like the second form. Can we have that?


 I guess that's really a matter if whether the syntactic sugar of such
 compound operators is worth implementing.  If we're going to allow this,
 then we might as well allow such expressions as

 qwert not == yuiop
 asdfg not || hjkl


I don't see that that follows. What has == got to do with the "in" operator?

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

While it was 6/2/04 8:59 pm throughout the UK, Matthew sprinkled little
black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
<snip>
 qwert not == yuiop
 asdfg not || hjkl


 
 I don't see that that follows. What has == got to do with the "in"
 operator?


Comparatively little.  But plenty in common:
- both are binary operators
- both evaluate to a boolean value

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.