www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - isnot => !is

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?
May 23 2005
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter wrote:

 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?

Works for me! :) Lars Ivar Igesund
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
 How about:
     !is

That's my choice. Don't forget !in
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Walter wrote:
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?
 
 

Not the most beautiful, but I wouldn't argue! It's a lot better than the alternative. Are you going to put it in? -JJR
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider
"not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)




"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

 How about:
     !is
 ?

May 23 2005
parent reply Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
 "not" ...

 if (x is y)
 if (x not y)

Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
Aye; but there's no comma ~ hence no bang. More of a "phuuut" <g>

(society doesn't care for punctuation anymore; boo hoo)



"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r esi...
 "not" ...

 if (x is y)
 if (x not y)

Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>

May 23 2005
parent David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Kris wrote:
 Aye; but there's no comma ~ hence no bang. More of a "phuuut" <g>
 
 (society doesn't care for punctuation anymore; boo hoo)
 
 
 
 "Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
 news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r esi...
 
"not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)



I Like this Kris! -DavidM
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
news:op.sq8ylmt2kcck4r esi...
 "not" ...

 if (x is y)
 if (x not y)

Might get confused with ! when spoken, but we could say "bang" :>

Actually, the ! is pronounced as a tongue click: !is => "(click)is"
May 23 2005
parent Roberto Mariottini <Roberto_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6titm$25ll$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
Actually, the ! is pronounced as a tongue click:

    !is => "(click)is"

I've been thinking the correct pronounciation for ! was 'Wahlookkah'. Ciao P.S.: !is for me is as good as !=, so is !in.
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider
"not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)

Hum ... I suppose that could be misinterpreted.

!is does have some kind of Yoda feel to it ... for better or worse



"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

 How about:
     !is
 ?

May 23 2005
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <d6tgiu$23a5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
I guess "aint" is just too redneck, or something  :-)

I kinda like 'aint' but it would probably confuse the heck out of people outside the US. They'd probably think it was an integer type :)
!is would be kosher from my perspective too, though you might also consider
"not" ...

if (x is y)
if (x not y)

Hum ... I suppose that could be misinterpreted.

Yup. I read 'not' as unary negation. Besides, on some level I'd like to allow for the possibility of alternate symbols--so we could have 'and' alias '&&', etc.
!is does have some kind of Yoda feel to it ... for better or worse

I'll take any symbol so long as it is a binary inverse indentity operator. The existing !(a is b) is too awkward. Sean
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Kris" <fu bar.com> wrote in message news:d6tgiu$23a5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 !is does have some kind of Yoda feel to it ... for better or worse

No, I think any Yoda-esque language would have to be written in RPN. ;)
May 26 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Walter wrote:
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?

My eyes refuse to parse it. I'm just getting an error while reading 'a not is b' /* a !is b */ :( I need a preprocessor and I'm gonna use 'isnot' or 'aint'... Or I'm gonna stick with !== (unless it becomes deprecated) -- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
May 23 2005
parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Tom S wrote:
 Walter wrote:
 
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look 
 and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

 How about:
     !is
 ?

My eyes refuse to parse it. I'm just getting an error while reading 'a not is b' /* a !is b */ :( I need a preprocessor and I'm gonna use 'isnot' or 'aint'... Or I'm gonna stick with !== (unless it becomes deprecated)

same problem here... although I imagine I'd eventually come to grips with it. anything is better than !==
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:44:50 -0700, Walter wrote:

 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?

I think your reasons are quite unsophisticated, but it doesn't really matter what you choose Walter; anything is better than the current situation. I think this would be the first case in D, of an operator that mixes letters with punctuation characters. If your okay with that, then go with this hybrid. Do you also understand the desire for a '!in' operator? -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 8:00:51 AM
May 23 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:vinoh9xvdorv$.1ok3o74ypkpo9.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:44:50 -0700, Walter wrote:

 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look


 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

 How about:
     !is
 ?

I think your reasons are quite unsophisticated,

LOL. It does come down in the end to aesthetics. BASIC just doesn't look good on the printed page to me. I like !== and ===, but after a while it became obvious that wasn't going to fly.
 but it doesn't really
 matter what you choose Walter; anything is better than the current
 situation.

!is has some advantages - 'is' is already a keyword, so it won't conflict with anything, and there's some level of consistency with == and !=.
 I think this would be the first case in D, of an operator that mixes
 letters with punctuation characters. If your okay with that, then go with
 this hybrid.

Not exactly, the '!' and the 'is' would still be separate tokens. One could write: (a ! is b) for example.
 Do you also understand the desire for a '!in' operator?

I was unaware of that, I must have overlooked a thread here.
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)

!| would be pretty useless, though.
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
and !!x
which means absolutely not!!
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
Or !~not , which is simply a knot. Wasn't there mention of a band called
"And And And" in that movie "The Commitments"?

"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r esi...
 and !!x
 which means absolutely not!!

With all these clicks, we'll begin to sound like Triffids (remember them?)
May 23 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <d6tlug$28a6$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
Or !~not , which is simply a knot. Wasn't there mention of a band called
"And And And" in that movie "The Commitments"?

"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message
news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r esi...
 and !!x
 which means absolutely not!!

With all these clicks, we'll begin to sound like Triffids (remember them?)

Or the !Kung ;) Sean
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
"Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message 
news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r esi...
 and !!x
 which means absolutely not!!

Actually, I use "!!" a lot when passing ints for a bool. It's nicer than x!=0 or x!=false :-)
May 24 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 "Vathix" <vathix dprogramming.com> wrote in message 
 news:op.sq81oz1ykcck4r esi...
 
and !!x
which means absolutely not!!

Actually, I use "!!" a lot when passing ints for a bool. It's nicer than x!=0 or x!=false :-)

just remove it and achieve the same effect.
May 24 2005
next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
At least with VC6 you get a warning, something like "converting to bool 
(performance warning)", which will dissappear with either a i!=0 or !!i (i 
being an integer, or anything but bool).

L. 
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:
 Actually, I use "!!" a lot when passing ints for a bool. It's nicer than 
 x!=0 or x!=false :-) 
 
 

just remove it and achieve the same effect.

No e.g: !42 => 0 !0 => 1 so !! 42 => 1
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r esi>, Vathix says...
How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)

Actually, that would make a good deal of sense. Allowing the '!' operator to be paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way '+=' does. Given the following: <arg1> !<op> <arg2> Becomes: !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>) So why stop with 'is'?
!| would be pretty useless, though.

Not necessarily, since it would be equivalent to the production "!(a | b)", which is perfectly valid (if it is poor form). - EricAnderton at yahoo
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC), pragma wrote:

 In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r esi>, Vathix says...
 Allowing the '!' operator to be
 paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way
'+='
 does.
 
 Given the following:
 
 <arg1> !<op> <arg2>
 
 Becomes:
 
 !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>)

Nice one... though "a !== b" would then mean "!(a == b)" which !is the case ;-) -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 9:43:46 AM
May 23 2005
parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <11kxjvwiaop3l$.1gmwm3r9rr3av.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:01:15 +0000 (UTC), pragma wrote:

 In article <op.sq81hmhckcck4r esi>, Vathix says...
 Allowing the '!' operator to be
 paired with any existing operator, provides a shortcut in much the same way
'+='
 does.
 
 Given the following:
 
 <arg1> !<op> <arg2>
 
 Becomes:
 
 !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>)

Nice one... though "a !== b" would then mean "!(a == b)" which !is the case ;-)

Hey, it was worth a shot, right? - EricAnderton at yahoo
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d6tnbr$29e5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So why stop with 'is'?

Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.
May 23 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:

 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:d6tnbr$29e5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So why stop with 'is'?

Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.

Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 10:34:47 AM
May 23 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:

 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:d6tnbr$29e5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So why stop with 'is'?

Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.

Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we.

That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>.
May 23 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:01:24 -0700, Walter wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:1uuzfjcjxdmv9$.1rw9k27wcsz20$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:00 -0700, Walter wrote:

 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:d6tnbr$29e5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So why stop with 'is'?

Because too many operators makes for APL, a failure.

Define "too many", and explain how we could empirically measure it for D? No one would like a purely subjective decision here, would we.

That's about as practical as defining the difference between trash and art <g>.

Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due justification. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 11:04:08 AM
May 23 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:193ee48yh511k.1cixoutbwq6i6.dlg 40tude.net...
 Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for
 example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other
 just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a
 community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form
 of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be
 used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or
 unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due
 justification.

I am asking for feedback on this, but at some point, somebody's just gotta decide.
May 23 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:44:29 -0700, Walter wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:193ee48yh511k.1cixoutbwq6i6.dlg 40tude.net...
 Which is exactly my point. I am fearful that you will decide that, for
 example only, "!in" is too much like trash while other
 just-as-knowledgeable people would regard it as art. How do we, as a
 community, decide on what to include/exclude? There needs to be some form
 of 'measurement' (yes - I use the term loosely) or criteria that can be
 used so that we can prevent seemingly arbitrary, or biased, or
 unreasonable, or whatever!, decisions being enacted without due
 justification.

I am asking for feedback on this, but at some point, somebody's just gotta decide.

Duh! Of course. But upon what principles are such decisions being based on? Gut-feel? "I don't know much about art but I know what I like"? Consensus? Scoring? Conformance to the published goals for D? etc .. ... -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 7:58:20 PM
May 24 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1lqiubii1271i.6sc4whscwksc.dlg 40tude.net...
 Duh! Of course. But upon what principles are such decisions being based

I think these principles (or at least reasons) are being pretty well hashed out here.
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Vathix wrote:
 How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
 if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)
 
 !| would be pretty useless, though.

Isn't that called "nand" and um, what's the other one, "nor"? they are not exactly useless, they are aobut as useless as & and | anyway.
May 23 2005
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?SmFyaS1NYXR0aSBNw6RrZWzDpA==?= <jmjmak utu.fi.no.sp.am> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 Vathix wrote:
 
 How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
 if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)

 !| would be pretty useless, though.

Isn't that called "nand" and um, what's the other one, "nor"? they are not exactly useless, they are aobut as useless as & and | anyway.

Mathematically (!x | !y) is the same as !(x & y) and proposed (x !& y). IMO having multiple redundant operators doesn't make the readability much better. Are there any good arguments for the proposed logical (not is & and) operators? Jari-Matti
May 24 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
Vathix wrote:


How about throwing in a few more goodies like !&
if(!(x & y))  =>  if(x !& y)

!| would be pretty useless, though.

Isn't that called "nand" and um, what's the other one, "nor"? they are not exactly useless, they are aobut as useless as & and | anyway.

Mathematically (!x | !y) is the same as !(x & y) and proposed (x !& y). IMO having multiple redundant operators doesn't make the readability much better. Are there any good arguments for the proposed logical (not is & and) operators? Jari-Matti

I assume !& would be "nand" (I don't exactly remember what nand was). nand is a meaningfull "truth" operator. I'm unware of its applications in low level programming, but then again, I'm not very much aware of the uses of & itself. (well, other than bitmasking).
May 24 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7043p$2blk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I assume !& would be "nand" (I don't exactly remember what nand was).
 nand is a meaningfull "truth" operator. I'm unware of its applications
 in low level programming, but then again, I'm not very much aware of the
   uses of & itself. (well, other than bitmasking).

NAND is common in digital circuitry because it requires fewer transistors to build than AND. Hence, all the hardware logic tends to be built on top of NAND and NOR logic, rather than AND and OR. This rationale doesn't apply to software logic, however.
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

In case you don't catch my other post to this thread, '!is' gets my vote. Although, what would be better is that if that form were extended to all other binary operators as well. That way the production: <arg1> !<op> <arg2> Is synonomous with: !(<arg1> <op> <arg2>) Which would cover the proposal for !is, the request for !in and any others that may come up. - EricAnderton at yahoo
May 23 2005
parent reply Benji Smith <dlanguage xxagg.com> writes:
pragma wrote:
 In case you don't catch my other post to this thread, '!is' gets my vote.
 
 Although, what would be better is that if that form were extended to all other
 binary operators as well.

Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>= --BenjiSmith
May 24 2005
parent reply xs0 <xs0 xs0.com> writes:
Benji Smith wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 
 In case you don't catch my other post to this thread, '!is' gets my vote.

 Although, what would be better is that if that form were extended to 
 all other
 binary operators as well.

Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>= --BenjiSmith

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html: RelExpression: RelExpression !<>= ShiftExpression RelExpression !<> ShiftExpression RelExpression !> ShiftExpression RelExpression !>= ShiftExpression RelExpression !< ShiftExpression RelExpression !<= ShiftExpression (others snipped) :) xs0
May 24 2005
parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6vo2r$1skb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, xs0 says...
Benji Smith wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 
 In case you don't catch my other post to this thread, '!is' gets my vote.

 Although, what would be better is that if that form were extended to 
 all other
 binary operators as well.

Dear god...I hope I never have to see !<= or !>= --BenjiSmith

From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html: RelExpression: RelExpression !<>= ShiftExpression RelExpression !<> ShiftExpression RelExpression !> ShiftExpression RelExpression !>= ShiftExpression RelExpression !< ShiftExpression RelExpression !<= ShiftExpression (others snipped)

Ack! I completely forgot those existed. :( Just forget I even brought the topic up. '!is' by itself should be fine. - EricAnderton at yahoo
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?
 
 

I'm all for it. Infact, if you were to implement it as "isnot", I would've asked you to make it "!is". "isnot" is too Pascalish .. I hate Pascal (the language)
May 23 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nod <Nod_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :) Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed mnemonic do just as well? Like: if (x is y) if (x ni y) // Monty Python anyone? :) if (x is y) if (x si y) if (x is y) if (x ix y) if (x is y) if (x nis y) if (x is y) if (x ixnay y) -Nod-
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:

 In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

How about:
    !is

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :)

I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing nightmare, and not worth the effort.
 Does it have to be pronounceable? Wouldn't a semi-logical, easily-typed
mnemonic
 do just as well? Like:
 if (x is y)
 if (x ni y)  // Monty Python anyone? :)

LOL! if (x !! y) // analogous to '==' Or some 'out-there' versions ... if (x nay y) // scottish ? if (x mai y) // thai ? if (x is_not y) // avoid punctuations. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 2:30:15 PM
May 23 2005
next sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:
 
 
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

How about:
   !is

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :)

I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing nightmare, and not worth the effort.

I don't know how compilers work .. but isn't that the same as !== ?
May 23 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:47:51 -0600, Hasan Aljudy wrote:

 Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:
 
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

How about:
   !is

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in this context, but still :)

I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing nightmare, and not worth the effort.

I don't know how compilers work .. but isn't that the same as !== ?

No it's not. By 'punctuation' I mean those characters that cannot appear in an identifier name. "!==" contains three punctuation characters '!', '=', and '='. but "!is" contains one punctuation character and two identifier characters '!', 'i', and 's'. Why this makes it tricky for parsers is that the series of characters "!is" is of the same type as "=ab", and generally, parsers would see both series as two tokens - '!' and 'is', and '=' and 'ab'. That is, when a parser sees a punctuation character, it marks this as the start of a token and continues scanning until it gets a non-punctuation character (or white space) in order to find the end of the token. Now it could be that D will actually see this initially as two tokens, but a special post-parser routine will recognize certain token combinations as really being a single token. So the adjacent '!' and 'is' tokens could be transformed into '!is' token. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 24/05/2005 3:09:11 PM
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:ugj7ry3kmdwv$.1x7i3n72g0lmw$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:47:31 +0000 (UTC), Nod wrote:

 In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

How about:
    !is

That !is very pretty. Neither do I like the idea of mixing letters and punctuation. I'd interpret that as two operators. Not that it matters in


 context, but still :)

I think that this mixing punctuation and letters will be a parsing nightmare, and not worth the effort.

Not a problem. I wouldn't have proposed it if it was unworkable. It requires an extra lookahead token, but the parser uses lookahead already in several places.
May 23 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Nod" <Nod_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d6u84j$2n6n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 if (x is y)
 if (x ixnay y)

You get my vote for most creative entry! Thanks for the chuckle.
May 23 2005
parent Nod <Nod_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d6umk6$3us$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Nod" <Nod_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d6u84j$2n6n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 if (x is y)
 if (x ixnay y)

You get my vote for most creative entry! Thanks for the chuckle.

I aim to please. -Nod-
Jun 10 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese<technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

Looks great to me! It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;) digitalmars.D/21210 jcc7
May 23 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6udg9$2soq$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Looks great to me!

 It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;)
 digitalmars.D/21210

I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!
May 23 2005
next sibling parent J C Calvarese<technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <d6umk7$3us$4 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6udg9$2soq$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Looks great to me!

 It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;)
 digitalmars.D/21210

I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!

Sorry, I can't take credit for the idea. I'm not sure who first proposed it, but I'm sure it wasn't me. In fact, at least 3 other people mentioned it before I put it on my list. :) spock (ex novice3) Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:45:00 +0000 (UTC) digitalmars.D/21126 Anders Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:25:43 +0200 digitalmars.D/21167 Pragma #4 on his list (which inspired my list) Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:17:31 +0000 (UTC) digitalmars.D/21174 jcc7
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "J C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:d6udg9$2soq$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Looks great to me!

It was my 4th choice, but I'm not complaining. ;)
digitalmars.D/21210

I was sure somebody must have proposed this before, but I poked around and couldn't find it. Thanks for finding it for me. You thought of it first!

noooooooo I thought about it first!!! digitalmars.D/22977 actually, if you look at the dates, his is older than mine :'( ah well.
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply p9e883002 sneakemail.com writes:
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

FWIW, I'd prefer "isnt". The absence of the ' to "indicate the omission of a character"--Right. Replace a character with a character to indicate that the first character isn't there!--has always kinda bugged me in english anyway. And 'isnot' sounds like Data, whereas Lore had learnt to say 'isnt' :) Concise, unabiguous and no harder to learn for non-english speaking natives than '!is', thought I guess that gets closer to the French 'n'est pas'. That said, I don;t really have a problem with '!=='. And come to that, I would probably have gone for '=!='. anon.
May 23 2005
parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
 That said, I don;t really have a problem with '!=='. And come to that, I 
 would
 probably have gone for '=!='.

I've been following this "isnot" discussion for quite a while, and this is the first time I see "=!=" mentioned. It's not prety, but neither is "!is", and probably because I'm not used to it. =!= solves the readability problem of !==, and doesn't mix punctuation with text, what I like. I still prefer "isnot" though. It does sound better than "!is", so the pronunciation argument mentioned by Walter seems invalid to begin with. Also, please, arguments of the type "<x> looks like <language y> and I don't like <language y>". That's a strawman argument. I wish we'd get rid of this kind of reasoning once and for all. L.
May 24 2005
next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
That said, I don;t really have a problem with '!=='. And come to that, I 
would
probably have gone for '=!='.

I've been following this "isnot" discussion for quite a while, and this is the first time I see "=!=" mentioned. It's not prety, but neither is "!is", and probably because I'm not used to it. =!= solves the readability problem of !==, and doesn't mix punctuation with text, what I like. I still prefer "isnot" though. It does sound better than "!is", so the pronunciation argument mentioned by Walter seems invalid to begin with. Also, please, arguments of the type "<x> looks like <language y> and I don't like <language y>". That's a strawman argument. I wish we'd get rid of this kind of reasoning once and for all. L.

Hmmm.... I tend to agree with Lionello on this one. =!= might be the safest and most practical solution right now. -JJR
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 Also, please, arguments of the type "<x> looks like <language y> and I don't 
 like <language y>". That's a strawman argument. I wish we'd get rid of this 
 kind of reasoning once and for all.
 
 L. 
 

You like strawman arguments, don't you Lio. ;-) I wouldn't exactly call these strawman arguments, though, unless you can show us why. These aren't arguments at all. They're merely statements of feelings, preference, and emotion. Strawman arguments are much more serruptitious. :-) -JJR
May 24 2005
parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Hi John!

 You like strawman arguments, don't you Lio. ;-)

They're my favorite :-)
 I wouldn't exactly call these strawman arguments, though, unless you can 
 show us why.  These aren't arguments at all. They're merely statements of 
 feelings, preference, and emotion.  Strawman arguments are much more 
 serruptitious. :-)

I've followed some philosophy course a while ago, but I really can't remember all these different names for common argumentations. Strawman was something like: instead of attacking position X, you claim that Y is like X and attack Y instead. The arguments used against Y might have nothing to do with the similarity between X and Y, and therefore would never apply to X. So I think this is indeed strawman: "This looks like basic and basic is bad". Anyway, I've simplified it, but the construct is clear :-) L.
May 25 2005
next sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:17:59 +0300, Lionello Lunesu  
<lio lunesu.removethis.com> wrote:
 Hi John!

 You like strawman arguments, don't you Lio. ;-)

They're my favorite :-)
 I wouldn't exactly call these strawman arguments, though, unless you can
 show us why.  These aren't arguments at all. They're merely statements  
 of
 feelings, preference, and emotion.  Strawman arguments are much more
 serruptitious. :-)

I've followed some philosophy course a while ago, but I really can't remember all these different names for common argumentations. Strawman was something like: instead of attacking position X, you claim that Y is like X and attack Y instead. The arguments used against Y might have nothing to do with the similarity between X and Y, and therefore would never apply to X. So I think this is indeed strawman: "This looks like basic and basic is bad". Anyway, I've simplified it, but the construct is clear :-)

According to this doc/page: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm (and I'm not suggesting this document is authoritive in any way, just, interesting..) Strawman is "the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument": http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm So, it might be "strawman", but I think it's more of an: "Undistributed Middle" http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/undist.htm "two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property" They both "look like basic" (the common property), basic is bad, therefore this is bad. Regan
May 25 2005
parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
 According to this doc/page:
 http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Very interesting site! Thank you.
 "Undistributed Middle"
 http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/undist.htm
 "two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a 
 common property"

 They both "look like basic" (the common property), basic is bad, therefore 
 this is bad.

Yep, you're right.. Thank's for pointing that out. L.
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Actually, it's not a logical argument for why "isnot" is bad, it's an 
explanation of why "I don't like it".

I don't like languages that use words for everything, like pascal .. 
when I took a pascal course at Uni, it was very hard for me to maintain 
and debug my code, because everything was so cluttered with words. no 
clear distinction between different functions .. no clear lines/borders 
.. you know. not like C languages, where { and } and proper indentation 
makes everything look nice.

having an "isnot" kinda reminds me of these languages, which makes me 
feel bad about D. so I'd hate it if D has an "isnot" operator.

maybe now it's clear why this is not a "Strawman" argument.

btw, you shouldn't apply these logical rules strictly, because when we 
speak, we don't follow a strcit mathematical rule.
maybe a statement looks like a fallacy, but it actually isn't. like the 
ones I just explained.
and maybe a statement doesn't look like a fallacy, buty it actually is.

It's not the written word, it's the logical flow.

You don't have to say "assume x, therefor x" to be using circular logic.

you could simply say "x is true because it's true".
or, if two statements, x and y have the same meaning, you could say"
"x is true because y is true".

I once was kinda objecting against someone for using what I thought was 
circular logic, but he said
"How's that circular? circular is when you say "assume x, therefor x", 
but I wasn't saying that!!!"

But you know what, if you try to apply these like that, most of the time 
it won't work.

If you can't logically see the fallacy in your mind (regardless of the 
structure and the wording of the argument), then it's probably not a 
fallacy.

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 Hi John!
 
 
You like strawman arguments, don't you Lio. ;-)

They're my favorite :-)
I wouldn't exactly call these strawman arguments, though, unless you can 
show us why.  These aren't arguments at all. They're merely statements of 
feelings, preference, and emotion.  Strawman arguments are much more 
serruptitious. :-)

I've followed some philosophy course a while ago, but I really can't remember all these different names for common argumentations. Strawman was something like: instead of attacking position X, you claim that Y is like X and attack Y instead. The arguments used against Y might have nothing to do with the similarity between X and Y, and therefore would never apply to X. So I think this is indeed strawman: "This looks like basic and basic is bad". Anyway, I've simplified it, but the construct is clear :-) L.

May 26 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net> writes:
Walter wrote:
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?
 

pronounce it as "is not". After a while, knowing what the keyword means and how to say it, I can't see "isnot" as anything _but_ "is not". My point is that although you can think of it as "I snot", in practice I personally don't parse it as such. Every time I see "!is", well I don't really know how to say it. Certainly, I don't make the (click)is sound! I think that it is important to be able to speak easily about constructs (especially when explaining the code to another). I guess what I am trying to say is that for me "isnot" parses through my brain far more smoothly than "!is". All that said, I favour "a !is b" over "(!(a is b))", but I think my favourite would be "a isnot b" Thanks Brad
May 24 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:d6vior$1mqs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 My point is that although you can think of it as "I snot", in practice I

I understand. It's just that I've been inundated with the current marketing trend for prefixing "i" to everyday words to make it "internet". Just like the past frenzy of prefixing "e". I can't help it, whenever I see "isnot" I think it's some new internet product. It's a silly reason, all the same <g>.
 Certainly, I don't make the (click)is sound!

That was a joke <g>. (There is at least one human language that uses a tongue click.) I'd just pronounce !is as "is not". There are a couple other arguments against isnot: 1) The !in application has been brought up. I don't think innot is in the cards. 2) ! is the C language family term for "not". 3) Microsoft has patented "isnot" as an operator. While I feel this patent is absurd and would not stand in court, I have neither the resources nor the desire to go court about it.
May 24 2005
next sibling parent reply Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
Walter wrote:
 I understand. It's just that I've been inundated with the current marketing
 trend for prefixing "i" to everyday words to make it "internet". Just like
 the past frenzy of prefixing "e". I can't help it, whenever I see "isnot" I
 think it's some new internet product. It's a silly reason, all the same <g>.

You have forever ruined the operator "isnot" for me. :)
May 24 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:d707ov$2eoj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 I understand. It's just that I've been inundated with the current


 trend for prefixing "i" to everyday words to make it "internet". Just


 the past frenzy of prefixing "e". I can't help it, whenever I see


 think it's some new internet product. It's a silly reason, all the same


 You have forever ruined the operator "isnot" for me. :)

Then my task for today has been fulfilled. <g>
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jim H" <jimh nowhere.com> writes:
"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:d700at$287k$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 3) Microsoft has patented "isnot" as an operator. While I feel this patent
 is absurd and would not stand in court, I have neither the resources nor 
 the
 desire to go court about it.

I thought you were kidding. But I did a quick search and here it is: 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 (Sorry for the big link) It seems it only applies to BASIC though. I've heard it said that they just be applying for a patent to discourage people from using that operator, although they may not expect it to actually get approved. Sounds crazy to me that you could patent such a thing. It reminds me of that old article on the Onion (www.theonion.com) where Microsoft had patented 1 and 0, and therefore owned the rights to all software ever written. Jim
May 24 2005
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Jim H" <jimh nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d70846$2fbk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:d700at$287k$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 3) Microsoft has patented "isnot" as an operator. While I feel this


 is absurd and would not stand in court, I have neither the resources nor
 the
 desire to go court about it.


It does look like a joke. But it isnot. (Can this get any sillier?)
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jay <Jay_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d700at$287k$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... 
 
3) Microsoft

Is is not isnot, or is not is not isnot? Python let's me do the following: x is y x is not y x in y x not in y I saw that `not' is not a reserved keyword, which allows the above. The parser would have to look ahead one token after `is' and `not'. Python disallows the following: x is not in y I would, obviously, use what the language provides, but I'd prefer something that keeps my mind from stumbling when reading code. However, I suppose that the mind will get used to reading `!is' as `is not' with a little more effort it took to read `!=' as `is not equal to'. The thing that makes it a little difficult is that, at least for a while, I'll be reading `!is' as `is not is'. Jay
May 24 2005
parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
"Jay" <Jay_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d70rml$3ai$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d700at$287k$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

  x is y
  x is not y
  x in y
  x not in y

Now there's a bright idea. There will be those who go on about how it's too English-like, but given that 'is' and 'in' are already settled as words it makes perfect sense to use an addition word (rather than a symbolic '!'). The parser has to lookahead for the "!is" and "!in" cases anyway ... so there really no change there. Good one, Jay. I, for one, hope this is the outcome.
May 24 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Why don't we add "greater than" and "less than" too, then?

-[Unknown]
May 25 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:04:01 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

 Why don't we add "greater than" and "less than" too, then?

Now don't laugh, but I do use a language (Progress 4GL) that has 'EQ', 'NE', 'GT', 'LT', 'GE', and 'LE' in addition to the usual operator tokens. Thus ... if Customer.Name eq "PARNELL" then if Account.Balance lt 200.00 then run AddTransaction( "DEPOSIT", 5.00, today). is quite valid, if not morally corrupt ;-) -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 25/05/2005 7:06:38 PM
May 25 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Thank you, Walter, for this clear overview of arguments for "!is".

I wish you'd posted these in the first place :-)

L. 
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent reply Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:
There are a couple other arguments against isnot:

1) The !in application has been brought up. I don't think innot is in the
cards.

What about notin? OK this one is hard to "parse" by the eyes. notIn, not_in, ... hmmm
2) ! is the C language family term for "not".

3) Microsoft has patented "isnot" as an operator. While I feel this patent
is absurd and would not stand in court, I have neither the resources nor the
desire to go court about it.

AFAIK it'ts only patented for BASIC-like languages. I'm not sure if D is one of those.
May 27 2005
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Matthias Becker wrote:

There are a couple other arguments against isnot:

1) The !in application has been brought up. I don't think innot is in the
cards.

What about notin? OK this one is hard to "parse" by the eyes. notIn, not_in, ... hmmm

That should be nothin' Lars Ivar Igesund
May 27 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter wrote:

 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

"isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one) Of course, it should probably be spelled "isn't" to be 100% accurate...
 How about:
     !is
 ?

Q: Does this mean that === and !== are going to be deprecated/removed ? Or is the D language big enough to have two tokens for the same thing. --anders
May 24 2005
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:d6vjt6$1o8a$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Q: Does this mean that === and !== are going to be deprecated/removed ?

Yes. It'll be deprecated for a while, and eventually removed.
 Or is the D language big enough to have two tokens for the same thing.

C++ has "alternate tokens" for many operators, and the best that could be said for it is it seemed a good idea at the time. The alternate tokens are essentially never used, to the point where few even realize they are in the language. Then they get tripped up by them. The problem with === and !== is that with some fonts they are indistinguishable from == and !=. If they become alternate tokens, then they'll fall into disuse and people will trip over the === (thinking it is ==) and wonder why their code is not working right.
May 24 2005
parent Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:
C++ has "alternate tokens" for many operators, and the best that could be
said for it is it seemed a good idea at the time. The alternate tokens are
essentially never used, to the point where few even realize they are in the
language. Then they get tripped up by them.

I allways use and and or instead of these cryptic && and || ... what ever you want to call this crap.
May 27 2005
prev sibling parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
 "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)

I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ? -- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
May 24 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:56 +0200, Tom S  
<h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:
 Anders F Björklund wrote:
 "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)

I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ?

I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't should technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the slightest. Regan
May 24 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.no.sp.am> writes:
Regan Heath wrote:
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:56 +0200, Tom S 
 <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:
 
 Anders F Björklund wrote:

 "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious" one)

I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ?

I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't should technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the slightest. Regan

Then !(a in b) would be (a innt b), eh? IMO "isnt", "innt", "ntis" nor "ntin" don't sound and look so good as isNot or NotIn or their lowercase alternatives. The versions with a "_" sound like preprocessor macros to me. But these "real word" keywords aren't particulary common in c-like languages. More like Pascal or Basic. Besides Walter already told, there are some patent issues with isnot. Although this might be FUD, it's risky to fight with big corporations especially when your language outperforms theirs :) Jari-Matti
May 24 2005
next sibling parent Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 Regan Heath wrote:
I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't
should  technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the
slightest.

Regan

Then !(a in b) would be (a innt b), eh? IMO "isnt", "innt", "ntis" nor "ntin" don't sound and look so good as isNot or NotIn or their lowercase alternatives. The versions with a "_" sound like preprocessor macros to me. But these "real word" keywords aren't particulary common in c-like languages. More like Pascal or Basic. Besides Walter already told, there are some patent issues with isnot. Although this might be FUD, it's risky to fight with big corporations especially when your language outperforms theirs :) Jari-Matti

Actually, I have nothing against having '!in', but I don't necessairly have to have it at all. I don't use '!(a in b)' too often. 'a !== b' shows up maybe 20 times more often in my code. Dunno about others though... Still, I vote for 'isnt', I won't miss the missing apostrophe much :P -- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:50:49 +0300, Jari-Matti Mäkelä  
<jmjmak utu.fi.no.sp.am> wrote:
 Regan Heath wrote:
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:56 +0200, Tom S
 <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:

 Anders F Björklund wrote:

 "isnt" was provided as a serious alternative (~is as an "unserious"  
 one)

I'd actually vote for 'isnt'. IMO it looks better than 'isnot', and parses correctly in my brain, unlike '!is'. As for '!in', it looks and parses fine, although it wouldn't be consistent with 'isnt' :( Is there any hope ?

I too prefer 'isnt' over 'isnot' and '!is'. I don't care that isn't should technically have a ' in it, I don't see why that matters in the slightest. Regan

Then !(a in b) would be (a innt b), eh?

Nope. 'notin' seems like a good choice for this.
 IMO "isnt", "innt", "ntis" nor "ntin" don't sound and look so good as
 isNot or NotIn or their lowercase alternatives.

I disagree. 1. keywords with mixed case, no thanks. 2. 'isnot' is already out (as you yourself have mentioned below)
 The versions with a "_"
 sound like preprocessor macros to me.

Same here.
 But these "real word" keywords
 aren't particulary common in c-like languages.

I disagree: for while if do include define error line else case continue default double long short float main register signed static switch union ..
 More like Pascal or
 Basic. Besides Walter already told, there are some patent issues with
 isnot.

Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'. Regan
May 24 2005
parent reply David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
In article <opsraw0fs723k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...

Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'.

Regan

Not sure who suggested "isnot" (it was my first choice), but now that it appears to be totally out of the question. So, I guess it's time for me to move into "isnt" camp, since that would be my next choice. Unless of course, we could out-smart(tm) Microsoft, and use "isknot" which is pronounced the same...but, just spelled differently! :)) David L. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
May 24 2005
parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:
 In article <opsraw0fs723k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
 
 ..
 
Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'.

Regan

Not sure who suggested "isnot" (it was my first choice), but now that it appears to be totally out of the question. So, I guess it's time for me to move into "isnt" camp, since that would be my next choice. Unless of course, we could out-smart(tm) Microsoft, and use "isknot" which is pronounced the same...but, just spelled differently! :)) David L.

I do not like "isnt." Informal English contractions do not sit well with me in a formal computer language. It looks hackish, crude, and lazy. It looks like a mash of letters squashed together. !is is kinda ugly but workable. Maybe sticking with Lio's idea is not a bad idea: =!=. Or be out with it and provide another operator "not" so that we can say "is not" like Kris mentioned. It seems we're all pretty confused here about what we want to do. We don't want pascali, but nonetheless, we still use some of it? We might as well go all or nothing: "=!=" or "is not" or mabye both? -JJR
May 24 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:52:25 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:
 David L. Davis wrote:
 In article <opsraw0fs723k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
  ..

 Who suggested 'isnot'?? I like 'isnt'.

 Regan

it appears to be totally out of the question. So, I guess it's time for me to move into "isnt" camp, since that would be my next choice. Unless of course, we could out-smart(tm) Microsoft, and use "isknot" which is pronounced the same...but, just spelled differently! :)) David L.

I do not like "isnt." Informal English contractions do not sit well with me in a formal computer language. It looks hackish, crude, and lazy.

D is not English. It doesn't have to follow the same rules. Further, not everyone programming in D even speaks/reads English. I'm all for correct English, where it matters, but IMO this is not one of those places.
 !is is kinda ugly but workable.

The mixing of punctuation and letters bothers me. Walter did say it would in fact be two tokens "!" and "is", parsed using lookahead, but to me it just looks like a logical negation of a variable called "is" (granted, that would be illegal in D..)
 Maybe sticking with Lio's idea is not a bad idea: =!=.

If we're going to keep using punctuation, why not keep "!=="? I figured people we're bothered by the lack of symetry, "is" contains only letters, "!==" contains punctuation, and you'd not immediately know one was the opposite of the other.
 Or be out with it and provide another operator "not" so that we can say  
 "is not" like Kris mentioned.  It seems we're all pretty confused here  
 about what we want to do.

My impressions are: 1- We're after a shortcut for "!(a is b)". 2- Some dislike the lack of symetry between "is" and "!==". 3- Apparently "isnot" is copyrighted (or otherwise off limits). 4- Some dislike "isnt" as it isn't proper/correct english. 5- Some dislike the look of pascal, or perl, or <insert hated language here> So, the solution apparently, has to be: 1- A shortcut 2- To change "is" to punctuation OR use letters for it's opposite 3- Not "isnot" 4- Proper english 5- Not used by pascal, perl, <insert hated language here> How about: "is" changes to "eq" (as in equal) "!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)
 We don't want pascali, but nonetheless, we still use some of it?  We  
 might as well go all or nothing: "=!=" or "is not" or mabye both?

Good point, given that "!" and "is" would parse as two tokens and be interpreted using look ahead, why cant "is" "not" be done the same way? "is" would be a 'greedy' token. Regan
May 24 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:55:19 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:


[snip]
 
 My impressions are:
 
 1- We're after a shortcut for "!(a is b)".
 2- Some dislike the lack of symetry between "is" and "!==".
 3- Apparently "isnot" is copyrighted (or otherwise off limits).
 4- Some dislike "isnt" as it isn't proper/correct english.
 5- Some dislike the look of pascal, or perl, or <insert hated language  
 here>
 
 So, the solution apparently, has to be:
 1- A shortcut
 2- To change "is" to punctuation OR use letters for it's opposite
 3- Not "isnot"
 4- Proper english
 5- Not used by pascal, perl, <insert hated language here>
 
 How about:
 
 "is" changes to "eq"  (as in equal)
 "!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)

Now this is a rational approach to the issue. Best option so far, IMNSHO. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 25/05/2005 4:21:27 PM
May 24 2005
parent reply kris <fu bar.org> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:55:19 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:

"is" changes to "eq"  (as in equal)
"!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)

Now this is a rational approach to the issue. Best option so far, IMNSHO.

I think this whole thing would be simplified greatly if these were not keywords per se, but /properties/ instead. For example, if A-Arrays were a class/struct instead of a special type, one might imagine this instead of "if (x in y)": if (y.contains(x)) if (! y.contains(x)) or, if we must: if (y.in(x)) if (! y.in(x)) Isn't that more effective? I sure think so; and it reduces the keyword count. Of course, given that they are part of the core language, Walter could easily make AAs operate like this instead of using 'in' ... Similarly: if (x.is(y)) if (! x.is(y)) Which also reduces the keyword count, and fits well with the basic language syntax. For those who find the parens() to be overtly verbose, one might imagine them being implied for single argument properties? if (y.contains x) if (! y.contains x) if (x.is y) if (! x.is y) ------------ As discussed several times before ~ I'd really, really like to see a means of adding properties to the native types. Those of you who like the funky syntax associated with array-arguments would have a field-day with adding properties instead (a la C#, as Andy once pointed out); far more powerful. I mention this because such a feature could be taken advantage of in these cases, rather than clutter the core language with additional special-case keywords and/or symbolic compromises. - Kris
May 25 2005
next sibling parent Eugene Pelekhay <pelekhay gmail.com> writes:
kris wrote:
 Derek Parnell wrote:
 
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:55:19 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:

 "is" changes to "eq"  (as in equal)
 "!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)

Now this is a rational approach to the issue. Best option so far, IMNSHO.

I think this whole thing would be simplified greatly if these were not keywords per se, but /properties/ instead. For example, if A-Arrays were a class/struct instead of a special type, one might imagine this instead of "if (x in y)": if (y.contains(x)) if (! y.contains(x)) or, if we must: if (y.in(x)) if (! y.in(x)) Isn't that more effective? I sure think so; and it reduces the keyword count. Of course, given that they are part of the core language, Walter could easily make AAs operate like this instead of using 'in' ... Similarly: if (x.is(y)) if (! x.is(y)) Which also reduces the keyword count, and fits well with the basic language syntax. For those who find the parens() to be overtly verbose, one might imagine them being implied for single argument properties? if (y.contains x) if (! y.contains x) if (x.is y) if (! x.is y)

I think this would be best. And if "cast" operator will be replaced by .as() property everything will look solid.
 
 ------------
 
 As discussed several times before ~ I'd really, really like to see a 
 means of adding properties to the native types. Those of you who like 
 the funky syntax associated with array-arguments would have a field-day 
 with adding properties instead (a la C#, as Andy once pointed out); far 
 more powerful. I mention this because such a feature could be taken 
 advantage of in these cases, rather than clutter the core language with 
 additional special-case keywords and/or symbolic compromises.
 
 - Kris

May 25 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:20:47 -0700, kris wrote:

[snip]
 
 Similarly:
 
 if (x.is(y))
 if (! x.is(y))

Fails if x is null though. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 25/05/2005 6:57:43 PM
May 25 2005
next sibling parent Eugene Pelekhay <pelekhay gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:20:47 -0700, kris wrote:
 
 [snip]
 
Similarly:

if (x.is(y))
if (! x.is(y))

Fails if x is null though.

see any reason whay it should be a virtual.
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:83ck0777i2dl$.rtyhbgftl1v7.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:20:47 -0700, kris wrote:

 [snip]
 Similarly:

 if (x.is(y))
 if (! x.is(y))

Fails if x is null though.

Shouldn't fail. ".is" is hardly a virtual function, and in the end the same code will get generated, which will lead to the same result as the current "x is y". L.
May 25 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:
Hi,

 I think this whole thing would be simplified greatly if these were not 
 keywords per se, but /properties/ instead. For example, if A-Arrays were a 
 class/struct instead of a special type, one might imagine this instead of 
 "if (x in y)":

 if (y.contains(x))
 if (! y.contains(x))

 or, if we must:

 if (y.in(x))
 if (! y.in(x))

I agree. This seems like a much more scalable approach. L.
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent "uframer" <uframer sina100.com.cn> writes:
Best ever.
"kris" <fu bar.org> ??????:d718k6$1gll$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:55:19 +1200, Regan Heath wrote:

"is" changes to "eq"  (as in equal)
"!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)

Now this is a rational approach to the issue. Best option so far, IMNSHO.

I think this whole thing would be simplified greatly if these were not keywords per se, but /properties/ instead. For example, if A-Arrays were a class/struct instead of a special type, one might imagine this instead of "if (x in y)": if (y.contains(x)) if (! y.contains(x)) or, if we must: if (y.in(x)) if (! y.in(x)) Isn't that more effective? I sure think so; and it reduces the keyword count. Of course, given that they are part of the core language, Walter could easily make AAs operate like this instead of using 'in' ... Similarly: if (x.is(y)) if (! x.is(y)) Which also reduces the keyword count, and fits well with the basic language syntax. For those who find the parens() to be overtly verbose, one might imagine them being implied for single argument properties? if (y.contains x) if (! y.contains x) if (x.is y) if (! x.is y) ------------ As discussed several times before ~ I'd really, really like to see a means of adding properties to the native types. Those of you who like the funky syntax associated with array-arguments would have a field-day with adding properties instead (a la C#, as Andy once pointed out); far more powerful. I mention this because such a feature could be taken advantage of in these cases, rather than clutter the core language with additional special-case keywords and/or symbolic compromises. - Kris

May 27 2005
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Regan Heath wrote:
 On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:52:25 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:

 I do not like "isnt."  Informal English contractions do not sit well  
 with me in a formal computer language.  It looks hackish, crude, and  
 lazy.

D is not English. It doesn't have to follow the same rules. Further, not everyone programming in D even speaks/reads English. I'm all for correct English, where it matters, but IMO this is not one of those places.

Yes, D is English... or inherits strongly from it. Just look at all the operator names: class, ovrerride, interface, etc. We don't have to use English, but if we insist on it... it's nice to use a proper style.
 !is is kinda ugly but workable.

The mixing of punctuation and letters bothers me. Walter did say it would in fact be two tokens "!" and "is", parsed using lookahead, but to me it just looks like a logical negation of a variable called "is" (granted, that would be illegal in D..)
 Maybe sticking with Lio's idea is not a bad idea: =!=.

If we're going to keep using punctuation, why not keep "!=="? I figured people we're bothered by the lack of symetry, "is" contains only letters, "!==" contains punctuation, and you'd not immediately know one was the opposite of the other.
 Or be out with it and provide another operator "not" so that we can 
 say  "is not" like Kris mentioned.  It seems we're all pretty confused 
 here  about what we want to do.

My impressions are: 1- We're after a shortcut for "!(a is b)". 2- Some dislike the lack of symetry between "is" and "!==". 3- Apparently "isnot" is copyrighted (or otherwise off limits). 4- Some dislike "isnt" as it isn't proper/correct english. 5- Some dislike the look of pascal, or perl, or <insert hated language here> So, the solution apparently, has to be: 1- A shortcut 2- To change "is" to punctuation OR use letters for it's opposite 3- Not "isnot" 4- Proper english 5- Not used by pascal, perl, <insert hated language here> How about: "is" changes to "eq" (as in equal) "!==" changes to "ne" (as in not equal)
 We don't want pascali, but nonetheless, we still use some of it?  We  
 might as well go all or nothing: "=!=" or "is not" or mabye both?

Good point, given that "!" and "is" would parse as two tokens and be interpreted using look ahead, why cant "is" "not" be done the same way? "is" would be a 'greedy' token. Regan

Good suggestions. -JJR
May 25 2005
parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Regan Heath wrote:
 D is not English. It doesn't have to follow the same rules. Further, 
 not  everyone programming in D even speaks/reads English. I'm all for 
 correct  English, where it matters, but IMO this is not one of those 
 places.

Yes, D is English... or inherits strongly from it. Just look at all the operator names: class, ovrerride, interface, etc. We don't have to use English, but if we insist on it... it's nice to use a proper style.

Bleah, I meant "attribute" names and otherwise. You get the idea.
May 25 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 06:43:43 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 Regan Heath wrote:
 D is not English. It doesn't have to follow the same rules. Further,  
 not  everyone programming in D even speaks/reads English. I'm all for  
 correct  English, where it matters, but IMO this is not one of those  
 places.



My point was that D is a language, English is a language, they're both languages and they have many common factors, but, D !is English ;)
 Just look at all the operator names: class, ovrerride, interface, etc.  
 We don't have to use English, but if we insist on it... it's nice to  
 use a proper style.


Key word above 'nice'. I don't think it's 'required'. I mean 'foreach', 'ifdef', 'endif' break the "rules" for English in that they are words jammed together with the space removed, if we can do that, why not remove the '?
 Bleah, I meant "attribute" names and otherwise.  You get the idea.

:) Regan
May 25 2005
parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Regan Heath wrote:
 On Wed, 25 May 2005 06:43:43 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 John Reimer wrote:

 Regan Heath wrote:

 D is not English. It doesn't have to follow the same rules. 
 Further,  not  everyone programming in D even speaks/reads English. 
 I'm all for  correct  English, where it matters, but IMO this is not 
 one of those  places.



My point was that D is a language, English is a language, they're both languages and they have many common factors, but, D !is English ;)
 Just look at all the operator names: class, ovrerride, interface, 
 etc.  We don't have to use English, but if we insist on it... it's 
 nice to  use a proper style.


Key word above 'nice'. I don't think it's 'required'. I mean 'foreach', 'ifdef', 'endif' break the "rules" for English in that they are words jammed together with the space removed, if we can do that, why not remove the '?
 Bleah, I meant "attribute" names and otherwise.  You get the idea.

:) Regan

Ah! "isnt" be ugly and I'm stickin' to it! ;-) <runs away covering eyes and ears> -JJR
May 25 2005
parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Ah!
 
 "isnt" be ugly and I'm stickin' to it! ;-)
 
 <runs away covering eyes and ears>
 
 -JJR

"isnt" !be ugly. "!is" be ugly. No, wait... "!be" be ugly... omg :o -- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
May 25 2005
next sibling parent reply Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
Tom S wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Ah!

 "isnt" be ugly and I'm stickin' to it! ;-)

 <runs away covering eyes and ears>

 -JJR

"isnt" !be ugly. "!is" be ugly. No, wait... "!be" be ugly... omg :o

One should note, however, that, (by definition) "!is" !is ugly however, I respect your opinion if you say that you think that "!is" == ugly
May 25 2005
parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d725oo$2tsj$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Russ Lewis says...
Tom S wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Ah!

 "isnt" be ugly and I'm stickin' to it! ;-)

 <runs away covering eyes and ears>

 -JJR

"isnt" !be ugly. "!is" be ugly. No, wait... "!be" be ugly... omg :o

One should note, however, that, (by definition) "!is" !is ugly however, I respect your opinion if you say that you think that "!is" == ugly

Just make sure that ugly !is null first. - EricAnderton at yahoo
May 25 2005
prev sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Tom S wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Ah!

 "isnt" be ugly and I'm stickin' to it! ;-)

 <runs away covering eyes and ears>

 -JJR

"isnt" !be ugly. "!is" be ugly. No, wait... "!be" be ugly... omg :o

LOL! Remember D "is not" English... so it does not matter what "is" or "is not" ugly! <-- (exclamation as an exclamation). It does matter, though, what "is" or "is not" a strawman (tip of the hat to Lio). :-D Trust the d newsgroup to run a serious topic into the ground. He he... -JJR (See? Was not the "is not" soooo clear?)
May 25 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
I'm going to get stoned for saying this, but I don't even really like 
"is" all that much... and I'll never understand why "==" is perfectly 
wonderful, but "!==" has problems.

-[Unknown]


 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?
 
 

May 24 2005
next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:21:15 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

 I'm going to get stoned for saying this, but I don't even really like 
 "is" all that much... and I'll never understand why "==" is perfectly 
 wonderful, but "!==" has problems.

It is not so much that there is something innately wrong with "!==". The more pressing point is when somebody says 'What is the negative of "is"?', you reply "!==". Sure "===" and "!==" has a sort of symmetry but "is" and "!==" just doesn't have that. So therefore we need to come up with an operator that is more attuned to "is". -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 25/05/2005 7:06:37 AM
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent James McComb <ned jamesmccomb.id.au> writes:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I'm going to get stoned for saying this, but I don't even really like 
 "is" all that much... and I'll never understand why "==" is perfectly 
 wonderful, but "!==" has problems.

I don't know if I understand your post correctly, but... I think it's *relatively* easier to confuse == with ===. For instance: if (x == 5) // probably not mistaken for if (x = 5) x = y + z; // probably not mistaken for x == y + z; if (x === y) // might be mistaken for if (x == y) if (x is y) // impossible to mistake for if (x == y) James McComb
May 24 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
Walter wrote:
 While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
 'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
 the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.
 
 How about:
     !is
 ?

Hey, either option is better than !(a is b). I'm glad you're looking at implementing this, however it happens!
May 24 2005
prev sibling parent reply David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
In article <d6tfcc$221o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
While I understand the desire for an isnot operator as the complement of
'is', I confess I always just hated 'isnot', both for it's BASICy look and
the rude alternate way of pronouncing it.

How about:
    !is
?

Well I suppose "!is" (not is), or should that be pronounced "duh_it_doesnt_exist", _is_ better then the current "!==" syntax, but frankly I'm still in the "isnot" camp. :P Course, it would be nice to have this tropic decided upon before D v1.0 is released. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
May 24 2005
parent reply Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:
 Well I suppose "!is" (not is), or should that be pronounced
 "duh_it_doesnt_exist", _is_ better then the current "!==" syntax, but frankly
 I'm still in the "isnot" camp. :P
 
 Course, it would be nice to have this tropic decided upon before D v1.0 is
 released. 

I don't know that it matters too much. If there is ever some other compiler that chooses to use "isnot", then, before long, most compilers will support both :)
May 24 2005
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Russ Lewis wrote:
 David L. Davis wrote:
 
 Well I suppose "!is" (not is), or should that be pronounced
 "duh_it_doesnt_exist", _is_ better then the current "!==" syntax, but 
 frankly
 I'm still in the "isnot" camp. :P

 Course, it would be nice to have this tropic decided upon before D 
 v1.0 is
 released. 

I don't know that it matters too much. If there is ever some other compiler that chooses to use "isnot", then, before long, most compilers will support both :)

Such compiler will not technically be a D compiler .. atleast one that doesn't abid by the standards. That's a dirty way to implement something into the language. And, "graphics.h" has been around for a long time, but no one other than borland supports it.
May 24 2005
parent Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 I don't know that it matters too much.  If there is ever some other 
 compiler that chooses to use "isnot", then, before long, most 
 compilers will support both :)

Such compiler will not technically be a D compiler .. atleast one that doesn't abid by the standards. That's a dirty way to implement something into the language. And, "graphics.h" has been around for a long time, but no one other than borland supports it.

(smile) I guess I just use gcc too much. I suspect that Walter's 1.0 compiler will function sort of like ANSI C - everybody needs to support it, but most compilers will also support a lot of things that aren't in the "official" language.
May 24 2005