On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:42:30 +0100, downs wrote: > This has been brought up before as an argument against the !in operator > (forcing us to resort to such workarounds as /notin/): that the !in > operator would have inconsistent syntax with in, because in returns a > pointer and !in would return a bool. > > This is NOT a reason against !in. In fact, this so-called > "inconsistency" is already present in the language. If we remember, > !pointer already transforms it into a boolean, so it would actually be > more consistent if !in changed the return type to bool. > > Furthermore, many newcomers expect !in to work because it is intuitive. > Violating such user expectations should be avoided wherever possible.
Having such operator/syntactic sugar would be very nice. None of the arguments against it have convinced me so far.
