Feed Icon RSS 1.0 XML Feed available

Proposing DID as the Programmer's Antonym of NOT

Date: 24-Jan-2018/0:18

Tags: , ,

Characters: (none)

Nearly every programming language has some kind of boolean logic type, that can be tested for exact equality to TRUE or FALSE. Yet languages routinely have non-boolean data values that are able to act "conditionally true" or "conditionally false", directing a branch to run or not...without explicitly being converted to a boolean first.
With a nod to Stephen Colbert, the terms "truthy" and "fals(e)y" have gained some traction with programmers for this concept. Historical C treats only the integer 0 as falsey, and didn't get an actual boolean type until C99. By comparison, JavaScript has an oodle of falsey types:
I don't want to get into a debate here about how choosing what values are truthy and falsey affect software. What I want to do is suggest an effective pair of words for dealing with truthiness and falseyness. One word is already established, the other isn't.
This might seem a little weird, but hear me out...

Proposed Pairing: DID and NOT

Most people probably don't question why NOT has emerged as the standard "test for falseyness". One reason is likely that they've just become acclimated to it. If you hang around programming for a while, you'll eventually get comfortable with:
    thing = maybe_get_thing();
    if (not thing) {
        // stuff to do if thing wasn't gotten
You accept NOT isn't performing "pure" logic on strict boolean input. It's rather a more abstract test for the absence of an "optional thing".
My thesis is that people can get used to DID too, and perhaps come to like it a lot. It's short, the same number of letters as NOT, and I found it feels pretty natural after just a little while.
We'll work through some scenarios shortly. But let's first consider the categories of alternatives for getting a canon logical TRUE out of a "truthy" value:
  • NOT NOT - This seems "obviously bad": whether with symbols or words, double-negation just messes with your mind. (Point of curiosity: some have mistaken !! in C for an operator, instead of a sequence of two separate ! operations.)
  • IsTruthy and IsFalsey - My view is that you'd actually need to use those goofy words vs. a more plain IsTrue or IsFalse. Otherwise if your language has canon true and false values, it isn't distinct enough from testing for those precise canon values. And I'm not a fan of seeing the words "truthy" and "falsey" make it into my code...I tried it, didn't like it.
  • Perl6 chose SO for non-negation - I can only imagine this arose from hearing kids having an argument like "is not!", "is so!", then concluding that SO and NOT must be antonyms. (Under that reasoning, perhaps TOO was considered as well?) While I certainly commend their initiative in wanting to invent a short name for this, it's a pretty bad choice in practice--entirely the wrong type of word.
  • Just plain "IS" - Some Internet debates claim that the opposite of "not-ness" or "nothing-ness" would be "is-ness". Hence is thing could test for the "there-ness" of that thing. We'll examine it, but I personally think IS has much more of an infix quality...and it's an infix operator in the language I wanted to apply DID too, so it was already ruled out.
But the most familiar mechanism most languages will have is the construct of "conversion" or "casting" to boolean. For example: with JavaScript you'd have ToBoolean or Boolean(). Such operations would pretty much always involve the word "Bool"/"Boolean"/"Logic" plus some syntax, like C++'s lengthy static_cast<bool>(thing), or Rebol's to logic! thing.
I think conversion is a great way to express what you're doing, when it matches your intent. But I don't think it always does...

Conversion Meaning vs. "DID Meaning"

Imagine if you have some kind of function that finds values in a collection, but returns you a falsey result to say its missing. Then someone really just wants to know if it's there. Let's also say the language has a NOT keyword:
var element = find(collection,id);

// Caller expects strictly TRUE or FALSE for availability
var available;
if (not element) {
    available = false;
} else {
    available = true;

return available;
So is the underlying intent "conversion"? Let's see how that looks in some hypothetical syntaxes:
var available = Boolean(find(collection, id));

var available = find(collection, id).ToBoolean();

var available = find(collection, id) as bool;

var available = (bool)find(collection, id);
No matter how you write it, if you need to work the word "boolean" into it, you'll get something that looks like conversion. Compare this to having a DID operator.
var available = did find(collection, id);
Pretty nice. How pleasing this will actually wind up being depends on your language syntax, but the point is about the pairing:
available ::= did(collection->find[id]);

unavailable ::= not(collection->find[id]);
It's hit or miss, as with NOT. While SO and IS are kind of always misses:
var available = so find(collection, id);

var available = is find(collection, id);
Interesting to point out is that DID and NOT can be put together and still make sense...arguably more sense in cases like this than NOT alone:
var unavailable = not find(collection, id); // a little cave-man-ish

var unavailable = did not find(collection, id); // more fluent?

var unavailable = didn't find(collection, id); // for the Rebolers :-)

Usage in Conditional Slots

One of the main places you find NOT is in the slots of conditionals. How does DID hold up there?
if (not thing) {
    // optional thing is not present

if (did thing) {
    // optional thing is present
That isn't a great fit. DID seems like a fairly "active" word, asking about some kind of event. It looks odd when you're not applying it to some function call or evaluation.
The word SO is of course terrible here. Yet people who would be in favor of IS-ness could actually argue it has the edge:
if (not thing) {
    // optional "thing" is not present

if (is thing) {
    // optional "thing" is present
Admittedly that's better...but, wait! It's a conditional slot already. Why would you use an operator at all?
if (not thing) {
    // optional "thing" is not present

if (thing) {
    // optional "thing" is present
The problem DID is trying to solve is when you need to coerce a truthy value in a place that isn't going to do it automatically. You wouldn't use it in conditional slots.

Usage with Expressions

I mentioned previously that someone outside of computer culture might wonder why an expression like NOT(1) would be meaningful at all. It doesn't seem that much weirder if DID(0) has meaning...pretty abstract already.
But in practice you don't see people using NOT on literals, so this isn't that relevant. Comparing them in action does show that DID does have some harder edges here. :-/
It keeps pretty good pace with NOT on equality tests:
BOOL match = DID(thing == 304);
BOOL mismatch = NOT(thing == 304);
"match if thing did equal 304" has a good feel. But relative comparisons throw a wrench into it:
BOOL enough = DID(volume > 1020);
BOOL insufficient = NOT(volume > 1020);
"volume did greater than 1020" doesn't jive as well as "volume not greater than 1020". It's just about how we read > as "greater than" vs. something like "compares bigger than", where "compares" would bridge to "did compare" in a way that equal can, but greater cannot. (Someone could probably do their Ph.D in linguistics on this.)
IS() fares a bit better here again. But the cases you would use IS() for...testing this intrinsic property...seem covered by a boolean conversion. It's the IS(find(...)) that's terribly weak, and that weakness outstrips what I see as a fairly minor drawback for DID() here.
It's definitely a slippery slope when you say "programmers will acclimate to anything". Because what's to stop you from saying SO(volume > 1020)? But I really do think there's a shorter path to rewire your brain to read it with DID...something akin to "did the following test pass".
Also, one might suggest WAS would make a good synonym for DID. But besides my competing interests for WAS, I think it's better to keep the functionality focused on one word.

Usage in Practice

The reason I'm writing about this at all is because I added this to an experimental branch of Rebol3. The suggestion had come up almost in a simultaneous mindlink with @rgchris, shortly after mocking SO...which means the mood wasn't completely serious.
But I found I liked it, and I was actually surprised by how much I liked it. Surprised enough to write an article. Surprised enough that I started wanting to see it in C (especially given the unfortunateness of !! I mentioned before.)
Since not everyone is aware: C++ actually has a not keyword (technically an "alternate token") in the standard, along with and, or, and xor.. They've all been there since the beginning, not that some people seemed to care about that standard (...cough...Microsoft. I can say "Microsoft failed to care about the standard"--I worked there some time ago. That's simply fact, I just had something in my throat.)
C programmers can find macros like #define not ! in <iso646.h>. In some alternate reality to ours, there's a #define did !! alongside #define not ! there, I think that would be pretty cool. :-)
But don't expect this to make it into that particular committee anytime soon. Those with experience in language standards know of course that if it's a legal variable name, someone out there has decided it's a (D)evice(ID) or a (D)ata(I)nderection(D)ereferencer in their code. There are plenty of dids out there, which have nothing to do with potential english usages of DID.
So in C you're going to need to define it yourself.

Heresy vs. Trendsetting

People might think this is silly, but I think it's a missing concept that many have realized is important. History is filled with examples of some under-the-radar idea, that looks blatantly obvious in retrospect. The invention of zero comes to mind.
I've seen firsthand how a single article on the Internet can sway public opinion and become canon. Maybe people will give a thought and link here, instead of embracing Perl6's offering of "SO"? I can dream.
If you're interested in talking about it, join the forum or StackOverflow chat.
Business Card from SXSW
Copyright (c) 2007-2018 hostilefork.com

Project names and graphic designs are All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted. Software codebases are governed by licenses included in their distributions. Posts on blog.hostilefork.com are licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, and may be excerpted or adapted under the terms of that license for noncommercial purposes.