Thom Boyer wrote:
> The enumerations and the numerical values are both in correct order.
> Since "abc" is less than "xyz",  "abc" cmp "xyz" is being invoked with
> its arguments in increasing order, So it returns Order::Increase. That
> numifies to -1 because that's how "less-than" is usually encoded.

Others have pointed out Joe's actual intent in asking the question; so
I won't belabor the point.

Instead, I'll say that the idea that Order::Increase numifies to -1 is
going to take some getting used to.  While I understand the reasoning
behind it, my intuition would have been to numify it to +1 for an
increase and -1 for a decrease.

If C<"abc" cmp "xyz"> must numify to -1, could we please choose
something like 'Order::Before' and 'Order::After' instead of
'Order::Increase' and 'Order::Decrease'?  Not only does this make more
intuitive sense, but it also pairs the Order values more closely with
the type-neutral comparison operators ('before' and 'after').

(Which brings up another point, which I'll freely admit I'm too lazy
to look up at the moment: do we already have a type-neutral operator
that corresponds to 'Order::Same'?  I suspect that '===' is it; but my
grasp of the plethora of equivalence operators is somewhat shaky.  If
not - and possibly even if so, depending on which paradigm is the most
important one to reinforce - I might recommend using 'same' to
complete the 'before'/'after' set of operators.)

Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Reply via email to