[OT] Re: The Is Operator

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:23:48 -0400, Kyle G. wrote:
> 
>> The code I am concerned about is "var !is null" which appears to 
>> translate to "var not is null" when it actually means "var is not null." 
>> Is there any special reason why we are unable to do "var isnot null" or 
>> "var is not null"?
> 
> This gets discussed every 6-months or so ... my favourite replacement
> keyword so far is "aint" as in "if (var aint null) "   :-)
> 
> 

Which reminds me, I need to petition for Ruby to have 'is'/'aint' added to it.  They've 
already got 'unless' and 'until', so why not?

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls