3 ms·

Sure, we learned "p => q" in discrete math, but we also learned "assert(someObj && someObj.data)" in CS101 or CS102. I think you're right, it is clearer, but no

by mnk47 3y ago

Sure, we learned "p => q" in discrete math, but we also learned "assert(someObj && someObj.data)" in CS101 or CS102. I think you're right, it is clearer, but not worth sacrificing the near universal familiarity of boolean expressions. I'd accept a change like this in Python, but it feels out of place in C++.

KerrAvon 3y ago
Python _really_ doesn't need more obtuse syntax. It's bad enough as it is.
slaymaker1907 3y ago
Old comment, but that's not quite right. The equivalent for implication is "assert(!someObj || someObj.data)" which is much more confusing to read. It's saying if someObj exists, then it should also have data. Upon reflection, I think a better example would be something like "assert(someObj.type == SomeObjType::Float => !isnan(someObj.data))". Without the new operator, it would be "assert(someObj.type != SomeObjType::Float || !isnan(someObj.data))" which doesn't make the intent clear.