not operator operator..

[Anders F Björklund]

S. Chancellor wrote:

> I really really hate the !in, !is syntax.   I think a lot of other 
> people do too.

I do too. Hmm, does "!in" even exist ?

> I propose that the word not, become an operator on 
> operators.  For example:
> 
> Foo not is null
> Foo not in Bar

But this just looks just as horrible ?

Back in the day it was suggested that the Foo !== null syntax
was changed into !(Foo is null), so I guess you can use that ?

I just gave up and converted it to !Foo... Boolean be damned.

--anders