downs wrote: > A large part of the case for !in is that you can pronounce it "a *not > in* b". !+, on the other hand, would be .. what? "a not plus b? does > that mean a - b? " :)
It's a question of consistent patterns versus special cases. If 'a !<op> b == !(a <op> b)', then the parser can rewrite all 'a !<op> b' expressions as '!(a <op> b)' in a single place, without looking at what <op> is. (Of course '!=' (as the opposite of '==' as opposed to '=') is already a special case, so perhaps defining the '!<op>' operators individually is unavoidable. 'a !== b' as '!(a == b)' would work, but 'a != b' as '!(a = b)' would be very weird and inconsistent with other languages.) I'm not suggesting that anybody should actually /use/ the '!+' operator, even if it was defined. That would be horrible. -- Rainer Deyke - rain...@eldwood.com