Hello,
Considering this context of comparison operators:
Generic Num Str
---
=:= # equality (container)
!=:= # negated equality (container)
=== # equality (value, eternal semantics)
!===
Darren Duncan wrote:
Considering this context of comparison operators:
Generic Num Str
---
=:= # equality (container)
!=:= # negated equality (container)
=== # equality (value, eternal semantics)
At 5:24 PM -0800 11/11/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Remind me again why it's a good idea to have distinct eqv, ==, and eq
operators, and for == to represent the numeric equivalence test
instead of an argument-based equivalence test?
Personally, I'd rather replace ('eqv', '==', 'eq') with either ('==
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
>In terms of ordinal types, '>', '<', '>=', and '<=' would be the
>"generic" ordinal comparators, and you'd do the same sort of implicit
>or explicit type coercion that's done with '=='. Mind you, if you go
>with the ('==', '+==', '~==') set of equivalen
At 10:30 PM -0800 11/11/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Note that this is two competing suggestions: one where '==' means
'generic equivalence', '+==' means 'numeric equivalence', and '*=='
means 'string equivalence'; and another where '*==' means 'generic
equivalence', '==' means 'numeric equivalence',
