On 07/24/2010 11:15 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: > It is kinda confusing, but not that much. I think the main problem is > that it isn't intuitive. > > One usually expects the *operator==* to be symmetric, and in this case > it isn't. Moreover spotting bugs would be even harder. Why don't you > simply overload the *operator !=* ? > > That way I could come up with queries like - > > (Vocabulary::NAO::numericRating() < RATING ) && ( > Vocabulary::NAO::hasTag() != TAG )
that I of course did, too. But I removed the operator version I proposed as I have now 3 voices against it. :) Cheers, Sebastian _______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
