I would rather see a new operator than changing the behaviour of ==
On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 at 09:44 Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Yeah I am not sure if end users would be surprised if we change == to > be case insensitive for strings? > > Or we could consider having =~ as an alternative comparison operator > (although =~ may not be though as insensitive operator?) > > If we have a new operator or change the default behavior it would have > the performance benefit to avoid the reflection method invocation that > a .toLowerCase() would require. > > > Any thoughts in the community ? > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:52 PM, s.marjanovic > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > > > I managed to find the same information as you posted in the example, > > although without the "?" part. > > > > Great tip about that, thanks. > > > > Regards, > > Slavisa > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Can-simple-be-made-to-compare-strings-in-a-case-insensitive-way-tp5767732p5767756.html > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > Red Hat, Inc. > Email: [email protected] > Twitter: davsclaus > Blog: http://davsclaus.com > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen > hawtio: http://hawt.io/ > fabric8 <http://hawt.io/fabric8>: http://fabric8.io/ >
