just that part
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > > This looks like it could be a really easy place to accidentally add heavy > complexity to things. Do we really want people do be checking > *mathematical* equals() on vectors which have floating point precision? > I took the above (perhaps erroneously) as floating an idea to terminate equals-by-value contract in vectors. But i take it this suggestion was already withdrawn so there's nothing else at the moment, we are on the same page. The rest of what you say I never argued against. Sorry for circumlocution, i think we are on the same page now. -d On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > D, > > I think that the current idea on the table is to do essentially nothing > except carefully examine and possibly remove cases of tables or sets with > Vector keys. > > What specifically are you arguing against? >
