English binary logic operators

[Sean Kelly]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> David Qualls schrieb am 2006-11-28:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps a few more BRIEF opinions regarding whether the standard
>>> English operators should be adopted within the D language would be
>>> enough to send the think-tank to their Cave Of Contemplation to
>>> debate it amongst themselves. 
>>
>>
>> Adding addtional keywords that have exactly the same functions like
>> already present keywords (actually keytokens) seems to be against D's
>> spirit.
>>
>> The more general issue: Iv'e checked 10 random C/C++ projects
>> (taken from Gentoo's portage) and none of them used iso646.h's 
>> alternative
>> spellings.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iD8DBQFFa+7ZLK5blCcjpWoRAgQdAJ0UBatA3czG0A5+wZdMwcl50q/39gCghILf
>> fpEBz2SVezekjI+rWqpibfE=
>> =nQ5N
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> Hang on... doesn't that header define macros that look like normal 
> prefix functions?

No.  They actually alias '&&' with 'and'.  Macros are a wonderful (read: 
terrifying) thing.

 > You're comparing this:
> 
>  > (expr1 and expr2) or (expr2 and expr3)
> 
> with this:
> 
>  > or(and(expr1, expr2), and(expr2, expr3))
> 
> Given the choice between the existing boolean operators and the second 
> lot, I'd choose the existing ones any day.  Given the choice between the 
> existing operators and the first lot, I'd chose the first lot.

Then you're in luck, so long as you're using C/C++ :-)


Sean