On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:39:33 +0100, Rainer Deyke <[email protected]> wrote:
(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.)
From the identity (a != b) == !(a == b), you could argue that
(a !<op> b) == !(a <op>= b), but I can hardly see that being better. :p -- Simen
