"Mark A. Biggar" schreef: > Darren Duncan: >> Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly >> recommend having negated versions of all these various types of >> equality tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be >> used very frequently, I believe (and I have even tried to do so), >> and of course we get the nice parity. > > Yes and they should be strictly implicitly defined in term of the > positive versions in such a way that you can't explicitly redefine > them separately. I.e., $x !== $y should always mean exactly the same > thing as !($x === $y). Maybe by a macro definition. To do otherwise > would be very confusing as it would make such simple program > transformations as: > > say "foo" if $x !== $y; > > into > > say "foo" unless $x === $y;
And how about symmetry: say "foo" unless $y === $x; > very unreliable. -- Affijn, Ruud "Gewoon is een tijger."