and/or/not/xor operators

[ixid]

On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 09:29:20 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:26:56 +0100, ixid <nuaccount at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>> We really don't want D to become a TMTOWTDI language.  
>>> Ideally there should be 1 right way and no alternatives.  
>>> That way, anyone who knows D will have a greater chance of 
>>> knowing what any given code sample does, and not have to look 
>>> up alternate syntax etc.
>>>
>>> R
>>
>> Up to a point I'd certainly agree with that, however in this 
>> case I think the advantages outweigh the penalty.
>
> Not for me, and I suspect others too.
>
>> These operators are self-documenting, no one will need to look 
>> up 'and'
>
> I can't recall ever being confused by &&.. in fact, I got my 
> first programming job (an apprentice position) by describing 
> some C code (a language I had never used/seen before) using && 
> and I immediately guess what it meant, it was obvious from the 
> context.
>
>> and gain readability
>
> To me using "and" would reduce parsability (as in by my human 
> eyes) and that would hamper readability, for me.
>
>> language accessibility
>
> Any programmer that does not understand && needs to be 
> educated, period.  Once that happens they can code in numerous 
> other languages, so win-win.
>
>> beauty.
>
> I don't find && ugly, in fact I would go so far as to say that 
> code using "and" would be less pleasant to my eyes.
>
> R

I think you're coming from a position of what is rather than what 
can be. You're practiced with && so it appears more normal than 
it is.

a and b

is far clearer than

a && b

especially as you add more terms:

a and b or c

versus

a && b || c

Which is just symbolic gibberish to anyone beginning programming. 
Digraphs are almost as bad as trigraphs.