Rod Adams writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >Admittedly, if you use == for everything, you can force string or
> >numeric comparison this way:
> >
> > if +$a == +$b {...} # numeric
> > if ~$a == ~$b {...} # string
> >
> >
> Hmm.
> In my head, I would expect == to have implicit numification on the
> operands (unless user-overloaded to something else, but that's
> different). In turn, I'd expect eq to have implicit stringifies.
> Therefore I'd expect the +'s to redundant in the first example.
>
> I'd then expect the second example to first convert $a and $b to strings
> because of the ~'s, then, because it sees the ==, it would numify those
> strings and do a numeric compare.
>
> Are my expectations misaligned here?
Oh, sorry, wasn't clear. That's *if* eq was eliminated and == became a
polymorphic operator.
You're correct in terms of the current (and hopefully continuing) state
of things.
Luke
