If you are going to use Gregster, why not add the other part. He was fine with keeping "<>".Helgef wrote: ↑20 Mar 2020, 02:19I don't know why you think lexikos is casually throwing things away. As gregster said, the choice to between <>/!= (or both) isn't comparable to the choice between := and =.if "<>" can be so casually thrown away, why not throw away the rest of the "divergent" operators too. Like say ":=" and replace it with "="
Anyways, the way I see it, removing <> from ahk v2 alpha wasn't about removing it from the language, is was about not adding it to AHK v2. If you cannot give a good answer as to why something should be in ahk v2, then it shouldn't be there. And no one have given a good answer as to why we need both != and <>, probably because there isn't any.
Cheers.
I believe "<>" was originally in AHK v2, and was only removed in more recent versions. And if it's something that is in the language and in people's scripts, then we are talking removal from the language versus not adding to AutoHotkey.But spending time on != vs <> seems irrelevant. That said, I wouldn't mind keeping it...
Many people also get confused by ":=", because they aren't familiar with it. Along those lines, AutoHotkey's "==" is as equally confusing, as it doesn't mean the same as in other languages. An argument can be made for rearranging "=" and "==", so that they mean the same as with C and other languages. "=" for assignment and "==" for equal to.
For that matter, nobody has ever given a good answer as to why AutoHotkey uses ":=". If there isn't any, why not change it in AHK v2 too. Or do we not do such, because a tradition of usage has already been established? That's partially the point I'm making.