At 12:55 PM -0700 7/14/06, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote (edited):
: Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
: recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
: equality tests. Eg, !=== for ===, !eqv for eqv, etc. They would be
: used very frequently, I believe (and I have even tried to do so), and
: of course we get the nice parity.
My gut feeling contradicts yours--I think these are going to be far
rarer in practice than == and eq, so they don't warrant yet more
special forms that have to be memorized.
Actually, now that I think about it, I could use 'not' to avoid a lot
of the syntactic hassle that I've been having with a lack of !===.
Eg, what I wanted was to avoid having to say:
if (!($foo === $bar) and ...) { ... }
So I had proposed instead:
if ($foo !=== $bar and ...) { ... }
But then your post reminded me of 'not', and since it binds tighter
than 'and' and 'or', I can say:
if (not $foo === $bar and ...) { ... }
While I still like the second example best, in light of the issues of
not-raising you mention that could confuse others, I'll withdraw my
request for now.
-- Darren Duncan
