My Kingdom For ...

[Gregor Richards]

Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:24:11 -0800, Robert Fraser wrote:
> 
>> Moritz Warning wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:53:00 -0700, Darryl Bleau wrote:
>>>
>>>> bearophile wrote:
>>>>> Another solution is to think "in" as an operator, and "!in" as two
>>>>> operators, where ! negates the result of the precedent "in", where
>>>>> "in" returns a pointer. I don't see this as silly :-)
>>>> I should have read this first. Yes, that's exactly what I would like.
>>> Fwiw:
>>> "is" may be no boolean operator, but "!" is a boolean operator. Hence,
>>> "!is" can be boolean operator the same way as "=" is not a boolean
>>> operator, but "!=" is.
>> Did you man "in"? "is" is a boolean operator.
> 
> Yes, I meant "in", not "is". - memory corruption. ;)
> 
> "=" is no boolean operator, but "!=" is.
> The reason for not having "!in" is weak, imho.

!= is not the opposite of =, it's the opposite of ==.

  - Gregor Richards