www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - "isnot", replacement for !==

reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!

The easiest is probably "isnot",
if !== indeed is deprecated now ?

It seems logical, since "is" has
already superseded the old "===" ?


AFAIK, it's a very simple patch.
(see attachment, vs. DMD 0.111)


Then again, the "politics" are not...
Especially since it could violate a
US patent of Microsoft's: #20040230959

 A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a
 single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to
 determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.

Walter, you decide. --anders PS. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
Jan 21 2005
next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello.lunesu crystalinter.remove.com> writes:
Are patents case-sensitive?

L. 
Jan 21 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello.lunesu crystalinter.remove.com> writes:
From 
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

"2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived 
programming language compiler."

Is DMD a "BASIC-derived programming language compiler" ?

(I'm not flooding. Any patent claim would seriously hurt D)

L. 
Jan 21 2005
parent Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 From 
 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
 
 "2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived 
 programming language compiler."
 
 Is DMD a "BASIC-derived programming language compiler" ?
 
 (I'm not flooding. Any patent claim would seriously hurt D)
 
 L. 
 
 

Seems to me that D is Java, C, C++, and C# derived...none of which are really basic derived, right? -- -PIB -- "C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch
Jan 21 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent parabolis <parabolis softhome.net> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!
 
 The easiest is probably "isnot",
 if !== indeed is deprecated now ?
 

I suggested this in another thread but perhaps it is more pertinent here. I would suggest making use of the '&equiv;' html entity which gives us ≡≡ for 'is' and !≡ for isnot/isnt/!==. I suspect D 2.0 will struggle with all the english based keywords in the future since Unicode support really suggests supporting multiple languages.
Jan 21 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dawid =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Ci=EA=BFarkiewicz?= <arael fov.pl> writes:
Anders F Bjrklund wrote:

 Since all of these have problems:
      isnt
      isn't
      aint
      ain't
      is not
      is!
 

(link maybe)? And what about "!is" (just asking)? Regards, -- Dawid Ciarkiewicz | arael jid: arael fov.pl
Jan 21 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Dawid Ciarkiewicz wrote:

Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!

I missed discussion about those problems. Can somebody point me a reasons (link maybe)? And what about "!is" (just asking)?

"isnt" and "aint" are informal, the others use funny characters... (quotes, spaces, and exclamation marks are not allowed in keywords) "not is" does not make much sense? Not more than "is not", anyway. One possibility is "~is", though. (using same rationale as "~this") --anders
Jan 21 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
isnot gets my vote

As for MS, well, what can one possibly say to the idea of patenting a keyword?
This world stinks, and it's getting 
smellier by the day.

"Anders F Bjrklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:csqprc$2lfn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!

 The easiest is probably "isnot",
 if !== indeed is deprecated now ?

 It seems logical, since "is" has
 already superseded the old "===" ?


 AFAIK, it's a very simple patch.
 (see attachment, vs. DMD 0.111)


 Then again, the "politics" are not...
 Especially since it could violate a
 US patent of Microsoft's: #20040230959

 A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a
 single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to
 determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.

Walter, you decide. --anders PS. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 --- dmd-0.111/dmd/src/dmd/lexer.c.orig Tue Dec 21 13:47:50 2004
 +++ dmd-0.111/dmd/src/dmd/lexer.c Fri Jan 21 12:25:00 2005
    -1940,6 +1940,7   
     { "function", TOKfunction },

     { "is", TOKidentity },
 +    { "isnot", TOKnotidentity },
     { "if", TOKif },
     { "else", TOKelse },
     { "while", TOKwhile },
    -2038,7 +2039,7   
     Token::tochars[TOKequal] = "==";
     Token::tochars[TOKnotequal] = "!=";
 //    Token::tochars[TOKidentity] = "===";
 -    Token::tochars[TOKnotidentity] = "!==";
 +//    Token::tochars[TOKnotidentity] = "!==";

     Token::tochars[TOKunord] = "!<>=";
     Token::tochars[TOKue] = "!<>";
 

Jan 21 2005
prev sibling parent reply Geoff Speicher <Geoff_member pathlink.com> writes:
Anders says...
Since all of these have problems:
     isnt
     isn't
     aint
     ain't
     is not
     is!

The easiest is probably "isnot",

What about just plain "not" ? Geoff
Feb 20 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Geoff Speicher wrote:

Since all of these have problems:
    isnt
    isn't
    aint
    ain't
    is not
    is!

The easiest is probably "isnot",

What about just plain "not" ?

"not" would be more reasonable as a transcript of '!', but not really logical as a replacement for '!==' ? Not that it matters, since there probably won't be *any* replacement for TOKnotidentity whatsoever once !== is gone. --anders
Feb 20 2005