Regarding the == instead of =, the only thing I can think of is identity checking of small integers, where in VW you get some improvement by using == instead of =. IIRC, I measured 25% faster in a loop that just did == as opposed to =. But, of course, using that kind of code is asking for trouble.
John M McIntosh wrote: > On 9-Jul-09, at 5:58 AM, Hernan Wilkinson wrote: > > >> So, Stef, what do we do? :-) >> I think we have discussed very interesting things is this thread. My >> conclusions are: >> > > >> 4) Go back to how things were >> > > +1 > > Frankly I think you could reuse '==' for the *exact* compare between > two items in the Number hierarchy > and leave '=' as the yes they are *equal* but not the same.... > > then you could really rummage about and fix/explain/justify why > > 29347921734912734927349279273499274 == > (29347921734912734927349279273499274-1+1) is false and explain why > in the same manner as saying (1/10) == 0.1 is false, & resolve why 0.1 > == (0.1-0.01+0.01) is false yet 10 == (10-1+1) is true. > > And yes people do things like use '==' for numbers, for the strangest > reasons. > > -- > = > = > = > ======================================================================== > John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> Twitter: > squeaker68882 > Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com > = > = > = > ======================================================================== > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
