version: multiple conditions

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 11:51:04 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:57:19 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
>> Although I think it might be more readable to have "and", "or" 
>> etc as operators. This is actually allowed in C++:
>> 
>> "a && b" <=> "a and b"…
>
> i prefer that to "&&" and "||", tbh, not because i have 
> pascal/oberon background, but 'cause it's harder to make a 
> typo. "|" is binary, "or" is logic. simple and easy.

Yes, there is something clean looking about "and"/"or", in my 
toying with syntaxes I've found that sigils somehow more easily 
are perceived as noise than words.

It is a very different balance to get right as you add more 
features.

> p.s. and i hate that "true" converts to "1". in many forth 
> systems "true" is "-1", and it's way better. `a&cast(int)true` 
> actually works for the most widely used case (when a.sizeof <= 
> int.sizeof), for examplt.

I'm all for very strict typing, but converting true to int is by 
mathematical convention done to 1. On some CPUs it is also the 
hardware value. *shrugs*