From: Jeremy R. <jr...@fa...> - 2004-08-06 21:52:18
|
Oren: > Less desperate notion: Use '!' for 'false'. Its use as a "not" operator is > well established in many programming languages, so it is "reasonably" > mnemonic. It requires a slight twisting of the rules, since '!' is the > indicator for tags. However, since tags can never be empty, a '!' by itself > is not ambiguous: > > true: + > false: ! > > Hmmm. Not as nice as using '-', but not _too_ bad. Also, keep in mind this is > merely the canonical form, similar to ~ for null. Both null and booleans we > also support alternate presentations which are English based - null, > true/yes/on, false/no/off. > > I think I like this. What do people feel? ...Thinking a bit outside the box: no need to restrict yourself to one-character, neh? true: = false: != or true: + false: {} (Which might make you grumpy for other reasons, I realize.) ...Just trying to stimulate thought; don't have any arguments to support the notion. :) |