Hello Zeev,

Friday, February 17, 2006, 12:09:26 PM, you wrote:

> At 11:55 17/02/2006, Stefan Walk wrote:
>>On 16/02/06, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In languages where operator overloading is supported, it comes hand
>> > in hand with strict typing, which wouldn't allow for different values
>> > for x>y and y<x...
>> >
>> > Zeev
>>
>>That's not true, Ruby for example has operator overloading, and has no
>>problems with different meanings of x>y and y<x (but i don't know a
>>core class that does that).

> I mean *real* languages :)  Seriously though, it sounds like a bad 
> idea to allow it.

>>Also, PHP already breaks the transitivity rule for the equality
>>operator ($a == $b and $b == $c does not imply $a == $c), so there's
>>not much new evil if a user can, by loading an extension, break the
>>symmetry of the comparison operators, IMO.

> Oh I disagree.  While we do have some unique cases in which 
> transitivity is not maintained, they are quite, well, unique, and 
> arguably make sense.
> More importantly, the discussion here is not about transitivity 
> (although it does have transitivity implications).  It's more 
> fundamental, it's about the very meaning of smaller-than / 
> greater-than and the relationship between them.

Actually Sara only asked whether she could add a flag to some handlers.
That has nothing to with anything you started to discuss from there.

Best regards,
 Marcus

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to