Michiel Helvensteijn wrote: > There's this thing, though. I would make it so !(a op b) is equivalent to > (a !op b). It's a nice property. The IEEE standard requires that you set a > certain exception flag when comparing with a NaN value, right? Well, just > set the flag with the extra operators as well. The !(a op b) = (a !op b) > thing can even be extended to the and/or/xor operators.
Hm, I now realise this may be a problem for D, since it uses == for equality and != for non-equality. A consequence of using = for assignment, one of the most irritating backwards-C-compatibility things ever. -- Michiel Helvensteijn
