and/or/not/xor operators

[Regan Heath]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:26:56 +0100, ixid <nuaccount at gmail.com> wrote:

>> We really don't want D to become a TMTOWTDI language.  Ideally there  
>> should be 1 right way and no alternatives.  That way, anyone who knows  
>> D will have a greater chance of knowing what any given code sample  
>> does, and not have to look up alternate syntax etc.
>>
>> R
>
> Up to a point I'd certainly agree with that, however in this case I  
> think the advantages outweigh the penalty.

Not for me, and I suspect others too.

> These operators are self-documenting, no one will need to look up 'and'

I can't recall ever being confused by &&.. in fact, I got my first  
programming job (an apprentice position) by describing some C code (a  
language I had never used/seen before) using && and I immediately guess  
what it meant, it was obvious from the context.

> and gain readability

To me using "and" would reduce parsability (as in by my human eyes) and  
that would hamper readability, for me.

> language accessibility

Any programmer that does not understand && needs to be educated, period.   
Once that happens they can code in numerous other languages, so win-win.

> beauty.

I don't find && ugly, in fact I would go so far as to say that code using  
"and" would be less pleasant to my eyes.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/