On 8/16/06, Dr.Ruud wrote:
I also wondered why a "simple" array (for example containing only value
type objects) whould not C<===> its copy.
But with .SKID that must be easy to handle.

That's what I was wondering that started off this thread. I understand (more or less, I think), why it *does* work that way; I'm just not sure why we'd *want* it to work that way.

And maybe the answer is that in an ideal world, we wouldn't want it -- but in practice, that simply isn't feasible, so instead we get mutables and immutables and most of the time I'll just use "eqv" and everything will DWIM and it doesn't matter, and on the rare occasions when I really need to do === stuff, I'll just have to cope with it. (Or maybe subclass stuff with my own SKIDs to make it work the way I want, whatever.)

That's fine, trade-offs are a fact of life. But nobody's actually said that, so I don't know whether I'm misunderstanding something still, whether I just haven't clearly explained what the heck I mean (or both, always a distinct possibility!).


Reply via email to