More operators inside `is(...)` expressions

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at
Sun Aug 23 22:40:23 UTC 2020

On 8/23/20 6:25 PM, Dennis wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 August 2020 at 22:17:49 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> BTW, what I would propose is that the following case be added as an is 
>> Expression:
>> is(Type != TypeSpecialization)
>> As syntax sugar for:
>> !is(Type == TypeSpecialization)
>> And no other forms using != are valid.
> In that case the unclear `is(int != T, T)` case does not apply anymore. 
> But that would only expand the (already confusing) list of is-expression 
> forms with another special case.

I think the not-confusing not-special-case is expression boat didn't 
sail. It sank in the harbor.

We have already sailed on the confusing is boat.

At least it should be less annoying while we are on the journey.

Is there a reason you prefer writing !is(T == U) to is(T != U)? Or are 
you looking to define more things?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list