and/or/not/xor operators

[John Colvin]

On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 09:02:44 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:47:07 +0100, ixid <nuaccount at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes.  I am, and every other C and C++ programmer is.  Just 
> about no-one is practiced with "and" or "or" in a programming 
> language.
>
>> a and b
>>
>> is far clearer than
>>
>> a && b
>
> No, it's really not (for me).
>
>> especially as you add more terms:
>>
>> a and b or c
>>
>> versus
>>
>> a && b || c
>
> The latter is still clearer (to me).
>
> R

Although I love the easy-to-read properties of and/or, I always 
find they make it too tempting to read the code as english 
instead of formal logic.

E.g.
a and b or b and c
vs.
a && b || b && c

For me, the latter reminds me that I need to specify precedence 
whereas with the former it's just too easy to place the emphasis 
yourself like you do when reading prose.