<> Not Equal To != ?

HARMAN_guy.minervini

Adjunct Committee to Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy

rynando wrote: »

Ya but for me the readability is improved by having the != in there.

It is more readable, but it runs just a hair slower...but that's not a big deal unless you run it 50,000 times in FOR loop.

AMXJeff

Hi Guy!!!!!

Pep_SD

I too got burnt once using != intead of <>.
it was so painfull that I completely stopped using != for 'not equal to'.

It was when I started AMX a few years back and can't remember the case...

DHawthorne

Pep_SD wrote: »

I too got burnt once using != intead of <>.
it was so painfull that I completely stopped using != for 'not equal to'.

It was when I started AMX a few years back and can't remember the case...

I had the same experience, and the same lack of memory what the circumstances were. It could even have been fixed, for all I know, but the habit of using <> has become engrained.

a_riot42

I think finding that bug drove me temporarily insane and I simply dumped the entire memory of it from my brain.
Paul

mpullin

When I look at <>, it bothers me... I get a feeling that something is missing.

C.Houliaras

mpullin wrote: »

When I look at , it bothers me... I get a feeling that something is missing.

I like how >< looks...