为什么逻辑运算符的书面版本不会更广泛地使用？

问题描述

为什么逻辑运算符的书写版本没有更广泛地使用？我知道为什么它们存在（为了消除与编程早期的QWERTY键盘相关的问题），但它们似乎是一个语法糖否则丑陋的运算符。在 auto 和基于范围的for-loops的这一天，当和 c> 和或。



C ++ 学生比&& 更直观。同样，或等效于 || 。

我找到了答案，特别是以下blockquote启发：

这基本上对我说人们不使用他们，所以他们不期望他们，这似乎很奇怪，因为和（至少对我来说）比使用&& 更直观。

解决方案

我使用它们，我敦促人们也使用它们。这真的是所有的。几个人使用它们的原因是（a）历史和（b）Visual C ++不能识别它们，并且要求用户包括< ciso646> 。 这是一个错误这是Microsoft认可但拒绝修复。

这真的是所有关于他们。

Why are the written versions of the logical operators not more widely used? I understand why they exist (to eliminate problems associated with QWERTY keyboards in the early days of programming), but they seem like a syntactic sugar to otherwise "ugly" operators. In this day of auto and range based for-loops, it seems counter intuitive to use a an "ugly" operator when and and or are available.

Surely and is more intuitive to a beginning C++ student than &&. Likewise with or being equivalent to ||.

I've found this answer, particularly the following blockquote enlightening:

Which basically says to me "people don't use them so they don't expect them", which seems strange to be because and (to me, at least) is more intuitive than using &&.

解决方案

I use them, and I urge people to use them, too. That’s really all there is to it. The reason for few people using them is (a) historical and (b) Visual C++ does not recognise them, and requires the user to include <ciso646>. That’s a bug which Microsoft recognises but refuses to fix.

That’s really all there is to say about them.

这篇关于为什么逻辑运算符的书面版本不会更广泛地使用？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！