Go for it :-)That would actually keep us consistent with the appropriate C# behavior, which is the expected one.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Simone Busoli <[email protected]>wrote: > What about LCG with expressions? They know how to compare each other, when > they know who they are :) > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 19:52, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Custom Comparators for the join.We can detect them not being of the same >> type and coerce them to the bigger type >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> How are you thinking of doing it? Casting up should always be safe, so >>> you could always cast any numeric type to double or something like >>> that in order to compare. That way you could compare 1 with 1.00 also. >>> Not sure if that is a perf problem or not though. >>> >>> On Feb 22, 11:33 am, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Simone Busoli < >>> [email protected]>wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Actually, when you're doing a join it would be a very cool feature to >>> have. >>> > > I spent quite some time wondering why the rows didn't join correctly, >>> and it >>> > > was because the field on which it was performing the join was an >>> integer on >>> > > one side and a byte on the other. So far, the solution has been to >>> write >>> > > tests which ensure that the two sides of the join have the same field >>> types, >>> > > but I would like to solve it at the RhinoETL level. >>> > >>> > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:54, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> Ok, mission accomplished then - Makes sense once you think about it. >>> I >>> > >> certainly don't have any burning need for it to work and the easy >>> work >>> > >> around is to cast one of the items as they are read in if it becomes >>> > >> an issue so I think it's fine. Just wanted to check if that was a >>> > >> desired thing or not. >>> > >>> > >> On Feb 21, 10:43 am, Simone Busoli <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> > That was to point out the subtlety in the .net fx. I already >>> discussed >>> > >> it, >>> > >> > please lookup "row equality" on the mailing list. I think this can >>> be >>> > >> > addressed in several ways, but didn't take the time to do it yet. >>> > >>> > >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 17:13, webpaul <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> > > I looked at some recent changes and one of them was for checking >>> row >>> > >> > > equality. I noticed there was a specific test for an (int)1 not >>> being >>> > >> > > equal to a (byte)1 - is that the desired behavior or was the >>> test put >>> > >> > > in there just to demonstrate that subtlety? I did a little test >>> and >>> > >> > > was surprised to find the below .NET framework behavior, I would >>> have >>> > >> > > thought they would be equal: >>> > >>> > >> > > object a = (int)1; >>> > >> > > object b = (byte)1; >>> > >>> > >> > > Assert.IsFalse(a.Equals(b)); >>> > >>> > >> > > I'm guessing the framework just returns false if the types are >>> > >> > > different in the Equals implementation. >>> > >>> > >> > > So I understand why the test behaves how it does, just curious >>> if that >>> > >> > > is the desired effect or just due to the above and you wanted it >>> to be >>> > >> > > clear.- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
