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




and

 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 :-) 
 
 


correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "!!" uselessly redundant? you can 
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 :-) 
 
 


correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "!!" uselessly redundant? you can 
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


on?

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




this

 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. ;)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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. ;)
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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. ;)
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21126

Anders
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:25:43 +0200
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21167

Pragma

Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:17:31 +0000 (UTC)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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. ;)
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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!!!
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?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
 ?
 


I've just read most of this thread.  Everytime I see "isnot" I read and 
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


personally don't parse it as such.

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




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. :)


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




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.


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


has patented "isnot" as an operator. 
 
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


   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.


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 

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 

 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.
 


This is true only if ".is()" is a form of virtual method, but I didn't 
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 

 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.


  Yes, D is English... or inherits strongly from it.




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.


  Yes, D is English... or inherits strongly from it.




 
 
 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