Devin Mullins <twifkak / comcast.net> writes:

> Mark Hubbart wrote:
>
>> However, it's true that you can't use it directly in parameter lists.
>> You can get around it like this:
>>   assert((not foo))
>> The extra parens make the 'not foo' evaluate separately from the
>> parameter list, and it works.
>
> Also, oddly,
>   assert (not foo)

Yes, I know °∆not°« is a keyword and I know you can work around the
problem like that.  That doesn't mean the current behavior of raising
a syntax error when seeing not in a parameter list is useful.

The best workaround is to simply use °∆!°«, but I prefer the spelled-out
boolean operators, and I don't see why it should be disallowed here.

I realize that °∆not foo not bar and not baz°« would be confusing.
But I maintain that there is only one way to parse °∆assert not foo?°«,
and that it looks better than °∆assert !foo?°«.

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel / brockman.se>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.