Can the parser parse != ? Can the parser parse ! ? Both for Opal and the old Compiler ?
Clement 2014-06-26 13:56 GMT+02:00 Christophe Demarey <[email protected]>: > != does not look a good name according to first feedbacks. > A long version could simply be notEquals: > For a short version, more opinions/suggestions are welcomed > > Le 26 juin 2014 à 13:27, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit : > > > -1 for replacing ~= with != because it is not better at all > > +1 for avoiding it altogether like you suggest > > -1 for changing ~= to mean #closeTo: I like the longer name > > > > my 2c > > > > On 26 Jun 2014, at 10:15, Christophe Demarey < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like to make a suggestion that may lead to a long debate but > let's go: What do you think about deprecating ~= and replace it with != for > example? > >> Why? In mathematics the symbol ~ is used for equivalence. To me (and I > think any newcomer to Smalltalk) the first guess of the meaning of ~= is > equivalent to => missed. The meaning is totally different: "Answer whether > the receiver and the argument do not represent the same object." > >> > >> I never used this method because it is too confusing for me. I prefer > to use (a = b) not or (a = b) ifFalse:. > >> So, the discussion is open ... > >> > >> Christophe > > > > > >
