On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 09:45:10AM -0800, bcs wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 09:14 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:00:39PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>On 2/16/2012 8:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >>>Well, in that case, we should replace 'in' with '∈'.
> >>
> >>I would, but that doesn't work because of keyboarding issues.
> >
> >I wasn't being serious. I was going to suggest to those who complain
> >about&& being too similar to&, that we should adopt ∧ and ∨ instead.
> >Nice and readable, and unambiguous. And we could use ∀ instead of
> >'foreach'; that would save so much typing!
>
> ∀ is "for all" so it couldn't be used. The code might hit a break.
[...]
We could replace 'if (cond) break;' to 'except (cond)', so it would be
"for all ... except". So you'd have:
int[] array = [ ... ];
∀ x ∈ array except (x==42) {
...
}
;-)
T
--
Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth. -- Alan
Watts
