> I suspect it already has a different meaning, based on operator > precedence rules, left to right evaluation, etc., but I strongly > doubt there is much use of it in that manner, and would encourage > this redefinition to be used instead. It's currently an error (even if you redefine operators so it should work!) It *does* have a different (and stupid) meaning in C, but let's not go there. Damian
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Jonathan Scott Duff
- RFC: "Empty But True" Special S... John Porter
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway compari... Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway compari... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Martyn J. Pearce
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 25 (v1) Multiway comparisons Chaim Frenkel
- Damian Conway