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

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 8/24/20 4:03 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 23.08.20 23:08, Per Nordlöw wrote:
>> Why aren't more operators allowed inside `is(...)`-expressions?
>>
>> For instance
>>
>>      if (!is(CommonType!(typeof(min), typeof(max)) == void))
>>
>> could be written as
>>
>>      if (is(CommonType!(typeof(min), typeof(max)) != void))
>>
>> .
> 
> So is(undefined != void) would be `true`? (Where `undefined` does not 
> exist.)

Yes. If you write !is(T == void), then you are already not checking 
whether T is defined. This is no different.

This literally is just a nicer way to write it, where the operation is 
closer to the parameters, instead of partly outside the expression.

-Steve