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 <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr>:
!= 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 < Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> 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