I would not change the meaning of ==, that is "the same object". Right now 100 factorial == 100 factorial is false, and should stay the same.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM, John M McIntosh < [email protected]> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
