Hi Yuri,

I have no clue what you try to explain as idea. Could you give more detail or examples?

Regards,

Daniel

 Hi @Daniel Kuhlmann 

My ideia is to have an easier way to make if conditions in this two cases: conditions with only "or"s or only "and"s.

Imagine if we have a conditions like:

A  = 1 or A = 2 or A = 3 or A = 4 or A = 5

I think we can improve this to:

A = (1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5), it is easier to write, avoid repeting "A"s and "="s.

The same thing to conditions with only and:

A <> 1 and A <> 2 and A <> 3 and A <> 4 and A <> 5 to

A <> (1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5)

Hi @Yuri Fontes ,

you are proposing to somehow shorthand certain combinations of (in)equality and boolean operators, make them take on a different functionality dependant on the context they exist in ?  

I've never heard of such a thing, do you know of any programming languages that allow this ?

This goes against simple (math) rules of how to interpret a logical expression, and as such, I think it would decrease readability, not increase it.

If you feel you need this because your expression is too long / repetitive, than maybe you need to think of other solutions than a long condition ?  Maybe use some list or string holding all the options and index/search into that.  Can't really say without knowing exactly what you are trying to solve.

Dorine

Hi @Dorine Boudry 

The idea I proposed is not to solve a problem but to simplify a solution.

The idea does not go against mathematical rules. In mathematics, there is the simplification of terms, for example:

5 * a + 5 * b - 5 * c = 5 * (a + b - c).

My suggestion goes in the same direction as the simplification of terms we were taught in mathematics: A = 1 or A = 2 or A = 3 => A = (1 or 2 or 3).

I believe that the fact that it doesn't exist in other languages is not a reason for it not to be integrated. There is always space for innovation.

Regards, Yuri Fontes.

your example is from arithmatic no boolean algebra

i never seen this type of thing with boolean operators

Hi @Yuri Fontes.

I think you're suggestion something like the IN operator in SQL.

Instead of doing:

A = 1 OR A = 2 OR A = 3

Doing something like:

A in (1, 2, 3)

Or instead of:

A <> 1 AND A <> AND OR AND <> 3

Doing something like:

A NOT IN (1, 2, 3)

Is that what you're proposing?

Thanks.

Hi @Dawud M.

That's exactly it.

Thank you