in reply to Re^7: Burned by precedence rules (eqv)
in thread Burned by precedence rules
Well, we can't use eqv because we already use that for something else, but we do have a Boolean not-equal already:
What we don't have is a Boolean equal. I thought about adding:$x ?^ $y
but people would probably think that means:$x ?= $y
which is nonsense, but they'd still think it. :-)$x = $x ? $y;
Anyway, the utility is not worth the extra complexity, in my opinion. Comparing two Booleans for equivalence is an odd enough thing to do that I don't mind if it looks a little odd.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^9: Burned by precedence rules (eqv)
by tilly (Archbishop) on Dec 31, 2008 at 03:58 UTC | |
Re^9: Burned by precedence rules (eqv)
by tye (Sage) on Dec 31, 2008 at 03:47 UTC |
In Section
Meditations