> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note if we are truly strict about C<==> always meaning "compare > > numerically", I imagine that the line: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > would in fact be identical to _this_ line: > > > > @a.length == @b.length; # or whatever it's called > > Whoa!! I read > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > as "does the [EMAIL PROTECTED] compare numerically as equal to the > [EMAIL PROTECTED]", which is definitely NOT the same as > > @a.length == @b.length; # or whatever it's called > > which I read as "does @a have the same number of elements as @b?"
As much as I don't want to refute my own operator, I agree with you here. I don't know what the "official" (this week) policy is, but I think it's a bad idea for references to auto-dereference. The other way around is fine, though (arrays auto-referencizing). C<[EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED]> seems fine, provided references stay as references. Hey, guess what Apocalypse 8 is about! :) Luke
