This may be a silly idea that doesn't come naturally to others, but the
first thing I thought of was "!n", where the "!" represents a flipped
"i", so the inverse of in.
Although, on the discussion of "notin" or "!in", the latter comes far
more naturally to me as others have mentioned.
On 2018-07-11 12:27, Mike Samuel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:51 PM T.J. Crowder
<tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Alex Vincent <ajvinc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In Linux programming, #!/bin/bash is very commonly the first line
of a shell
script. In Python, we have #!/bin/python, or #!/bin/perl. The #!
characters
are pronounced "she-bang", because # is pronounced "hash" and ! is
pronounced "bang".
Indeed. But in JavaScript (and Java and C and C# and...), `!` is
"not", and I for one read it that way when reading anything other
than bash script. I don't read `!==` as "bang equal," either. (Which
in British English would be really misleading...)
And that's why I like the idea of `!in` (or `notin`), because I'd
much rather read and write "if property not in object" than "if not
property in object" (and don't get me started on the parens required
to make it work :-) ).
To me, `!in` or `notin` or whatever you want makes perfect sense,
just like we have `!=` and `!==`. It's like not having `!==` and
then arguing we don't need to have it because after all, you can
write `n != 1` as `!(n == 1)`.
Heck, all we really need is NAND gates, right? ;-)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Isiah Meadows
<isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote:
So I agree this is a Really Bad Idea™, for this above if not the
Kotlin
reference.
I strongly disagree it's a Really Bad Idea™. I think it's a
Moderately Good Idea On The Whole™. And `!in` is fine by me but
I'm also happy with `notin` or whatever.
I agree with all your arguments about why it's more ergonomic, but I
keep coming back to what Naveen said: "I don't use `in`."
I think `in` is the wrong operator to make more convenient, except as
part of a more general cleanup to provide inverted forms of boolean
infix operators.
Usually, where I see `in` I would prefer that the author had used
hasOwnProperty.
And usually where I see (foo.hasOwnProperty(p)), I would prefer the
author wrote Reflect.apply(hasOwnProperty, foo, [p]).
What are the use cases for `in` that would not be better served by an
ergonomic, infix hasOwnProperty?
I just don't expect it to happen. Too much inertia to add it
after-the-fact, and too many bigger fish to fry. :-)
-- T.J. Crowder _______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
