Hm. Good point, and something I should go away and test. :-) I had it in my
head somewhere that Flash did a low-level crude equality check on objects
with == - are they both the same type and do the properties match? But I may
well have misremembered that as a feature of a different language - I do
seem to be switching between different languages for different tasks a lot
these days. :-)
Cheers,
Ian
On 1/23/06, Andreas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> > shouldn't there be a === or !== in there somewhere to make
> > sure you're talking about _exactly_ the same object rather
> > than one which just has the same value..?
> Good question...
> In my understanding - i.e. please correct me if I'm wrong! - when
> testing objects for equality the simple and the strict equality operator
> are completely interchangeable.
>
> We are not comparing values, which can be of different types (and thus
> provoke 'false positives' with the simple equality operator), but
> references, which have a simple, 'binary' quality: either they do point
> at the same place in memory or they don't.
> And two objects - by definition? - always occupy two distinct locations
> in memory, completely independent of wether they are of the same type
> and contain the same values.
>
> trace({} == {});// output: false
>
> That's why I think that when testing objects for equality, the simple
> and the strict oprator will always return the same result.
>
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
