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

[Dennis]

On Sunday, 23 August 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> Is there a reason you prefer writing !is(T == U) to is(T != U)? 
> Or are you looking to define more things?

I don't prefer the former form, but it's not longer (you have to 
write parentheses either way), and 95% of my is-expressions are 
testing for a positive match (so no ! needed at all).