I guess it depends on how you'd like to represent a date and time. We may have 2 representations here, the DateAndTime object and the string. If you consider that the string '1901-01-01T00:00:00+12:00' actually * represents* that day and time and it's not just the way you would print it, then I think it's valid to compare one representation and another of the same concept, because they really *mean* the same to you.
If you see '1901-01-01T00:00:00+12:00' and say "that's not a date and time, it's just how I'd print it" maybe the only valid representation of the date and time for you is a DateAndTime object, then it doesn't make sense comparing de DateAndTime object with it's string. Personally, I think the string it's just the "print string", I agree with you. But maybe originally the people who implemented that comparison considered it as a date and time representation too, so it makes sense to compare them. On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would expect = to be > > "reflexive" self assert: (a = a). > > "symmetric" self assert: (a = b) ==> (b = a). > > "transitive" self assert: (a = b) & (b = c) ==> (a = c). > > > > Date>>= does not seem to meet my expectations > > Yes the more I think about it the more I'm against this automatic > conversion. > > Stef > > _______________________________________________ > 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
