Yeah, that was my thinking on the topic too! But you said it much better :)
BTW, I'm wondering if Bob, the originator of this thread, wants to chime in and let us know if any of these suggestions helped or not. On 27 April 2010 10:34, Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.nz> wrote: > Maybe it’s just me, but “A doesn’t equal B” surely reads more closely to > the *real meaning* than “not (A does equal B)”. > > > > Apart from anything else, the latter *requires* parentheses to avoid the > compiler getting confused and trying to do : “(Not A) equals (B)”. i.e. the > latter syntax is also to the compiler less close to the real meaning (since > it requires disambiguation). > > > > From a human perspective the scanning is more fluid: A <> B, reads left to > right entirely as intended: “A does not equal B”. > > > > NOT (A = B) on the other hand requires me to read it like a syntax tree > parser: “NOT “ … (OK, store the fact that I have to logically invert what > follows, keep a mental note of parentheses) … then what follows is “( A is > equal to B )” , right OK, so “A is equal to B inverted”, i.e. A does not > equal B. > > > > In other words, exactly what is menat literally and clearly when I write… A > <> B. > > > > But as I say, maybe it’s just me. > > > > NOT (I think like a computer). > > > > ;) > > >
_______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
