Just a small observation,
'if(!' doesn't mean the whole statement is negated.
if(!a &&b) cannot be replaced with if!
so be careful with that.
Plus, it's only relevant if there's no accompanying else (otherwise just swap the order of the branches)

Not that it matters, nobody is going to back and change the code that's already written to if! in order to save 2 characters, storage space is not an issue at this level.

And I agree with Jens, it's a wart, doesn't actually make my life easy, it just adds another extra rule that I didn't need to the list of things I have to learn. Just put the 2 parentheses, there's already a syntax to negate expressions, we don't need one to negate keywords.


________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden].org> on behalf of Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 11:49:30 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] if !(condition)

Jens,

16.5% of if statements are like `if (!expr)`

You're welcome.
  -Andrew.

PS (`if(`=7495313 / `if(!`=45254716) in ACTCD19

PSS Yes, I checked `if(!` was dominated by `if(!expr)`

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:05 AM Jens Maurer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]<mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>> wrote:


On 20/04/2024 21.34, Yexuan Xiao wrote:
> Thank you for pointing out the error in my proposal; I’ll try to correct it in a later version.
>
> The data from LLVM or GCC shows code that directly benefits from this. Additionally, I searched all the Ruby code in Rails (a Ruby web framework with many users), where ‘unless’ appeared 1808 times, while ‘if’ appeared 10157 times. This data demonstrates the potential of the ‘if not’ pattern.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

I asked: How many "if" statements are there in LLVM in total?

By my crude count, for all of "llvm-project":

$ find . -name *.h -o -name *.cpp | xargs grep -w '[^#]if' | wc -l
498710

That's far less than 1% of "if" statements that would benefit.
I'm not convinced by those numbers.

> C++23 accepted ‘if !consteval’ instead of ‘if consteval(false)’, and the previous proposal P1181 has revealed other advantages, so I believe adding ‘if !constexpr’ or simply ‘if !’ is not a wart.

You're welcome to disagree with me.

The ISO standardization process is a consensus-driven process,
and I'm herewith advising you, as early in the process as possible,
of my opinion regarding your proposal.

Absent further convincing rationale, I believe your proposal does
not provide sufficient benefits in return for the added complexity,
and I'll vote strongly against your proposal at any opportunity
where I have a chance to do so.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Jens


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]<mailto:jens.maurer_at_[hidden]>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:01
> *To:* std-proposals_at_[hidden]<mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]<mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>>
> *Cc:* Yexuan Xiao <bizwen_at_[hidden]<mailto:bizwen_at_[hidden]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [std-proposals] if !(condition)
>
>
>
> On 20/04/2024 18.09, Yexuan Xiao via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> I've wrote a proposal that suggests allowing the omission of the outermost parentheses to simplify the conditions in if statements:
>> https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.nykz.org%2Fproposals%2Fif-not%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cb53d7d71b9eb4c67433f08dc616c49c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638492364927500272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Njw2Jwu1tWH8azBLMKGy6%2F2GPKqCr2uYCFBoxqsdvDc%3D&reserved=0<https://storage.nykz.org/proposals/if-not/> <https://storage.nykz.org/proposals/if-not/>
>>
>> Please share your comments.
>
> A "condition" might be a declaration. The "equivalent" syntax
> "!(condition)" is not valid C++ if the "condition" is a declaration.
>
> Thus, your proposal seems incomplete.
>
> You quote 1500 simplification opportunities in LLVM and 2300 ones
> in GCC. How many "if" statements are there in total, in each of
> those codebases?
>
> Beyond that, I'm strongly opposed: this delivers no benefit at all.
> Being able to omit nested parentheses in the condition in some
> cases (but not others, if the negation isn't at the top level)
> is insufficient motivation for another wart in the language,
> in my view.
>
> Someone hiding expression syntax in a macro is just misguided;
> I have no sympathy whatsoever.
>
> Jens
>
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]<mailto:Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]>
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals