On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 05:05:29 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
I suppose using "is" is more appropriate for this type of
behavior.
If when you see a == b you think,
Hey, that's equivalent to (a.d is b.d)
I suppose that when you see (a is b) you think,
Hey, that's equivalent to a.d == b.d
?
But calling it "broken" is a bit too strong.
If it doesn't make sense, it's broken.
Implementing == as 'is' by default doesn't make sense when there
is already an 'is' operator that could do the same, hence it's
broken.
