On 23/01/2010 20:10, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun"<yigal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjek8e$4j...@digitalmars.com...
uint a, b; // init to whatever
bool c, d; // ditto
auto r1 = a AND b; // a& b
auto r2 = c AND d; // c&& d
...
AND stands for whatever *single* syntax is chosen for this.
Yuck, that amounts to language-enforced operator overloading abuse, just
like the common mis-design of overloading '+' to mean both 'add' and
'concat'.
"No operator was abused during the making of this post"...
unlike the string concat. case, both the bit ops and the bool ops have
the exact same semantics (OR, AND, NOT) and the only difference is the
scale . This is already represented by the type system and there is no
need to repeat yourself a-la Java:
Foo foo = new Foo(); // is this really a Foo?
in the same spirit of things, no-one argues for a different addition op
for each integral type:
int a = 2 + 4;
long b = 2000000 ++ 400000000000; // LOOOOONG addition
it ain't assembly language.
Also, it prevents common bugs and makes for more readable code. In the
same vain, I'd be willing to remove other shortcuts that are come causes
of bugs, like the assignment inside the if condition and not requiring
explicit check in if condition.
"if (foo is null)" instead of "if (foo)".
Last thing, Stop with the moronic "oh my god, I need to type a few more
characters" attitude. (Yes, bearophile, that's you.)
FACT - code is read 1000 times more than it's written. readability IS
important. No, xfoo is NOT a legit name for a function, call it lazyFoo
if you want to emphasize its laziness. are you still trying to save 3
bytes in the age of cheap Tera-byte HDDs?
In the same spirit, stop removing f*cking vowels from words. You ain't
coding in Hebrew.
