[squeak-dev] Re: [Vm-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] About ~= and ~~

[Nicolas Cellier]

2011/10/13 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
> 2011/10/13 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>>
>> On 10/12/2011 22:20, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > People avoid it because of performance.  But I much prefer foo ~~ bar ifTrue: than foo == bar ifFalse:.  So I suspect/hope dynamic frequency will grow as people find its not such a performance issue any more.
>>>
>>> Well, no accounting for taste, I guess. I'd avoid it because I much
>>> prefer foo == bar iFalse:
>>
>> But why, if it doesn't express intent directly?  It's cognitively more difficult.  You have to negate to get the intent.
>>
>> It's really the same either way. My main reason for disliking ~= and ~~ is that both of these are aesthetically unpleasing. I'd much rather see <> instead of ~= and perhaps <==> instead of ~~.
>>
>
> Yes, one could think that ~= is approximately equal...
> Though the operator means different in Matlab too.
>
> <> exists in some languages too (Ada ? Fortran 95).

Ah no, it is /=
<> was in Matrix-x Xmath for example...

> But I dislike <==>
> <<>> or <><> or =<>= are not better...
>
> I like =/= but that makes a single selector...
> =//= ?
>
> Unless we start using what unicode provides (Fortress).
>
> Nicolas
>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>