> Really? Strings can't just be compared with == ? To be honest, that alone > is almost enough to put me off the language -- not only is it ugly and > unwieldy, but it suggests a lot of limitations in the language's memory > model / type system / operator overloading, which would also make my own > code ugly and unwieldy.
This kind of faux outrage isn't really constructive. Most systems languages don't let you compare strings with ==. In C you use str*cmp as == is pointer equality. This is also true in Java where you must write `if (foo.equals(bar))`. It would certainly be nice to follow in C++'s footsteps where std::strings are comparable with ==, but I'm not sure it nullifies Rust's goals if this condition can't be met. Equality always seems to be a mixed bag. In JavaScript you have == and ===. In Erlang you have == and =:=. In Java you have == and .equals(). In Clojure you have = and ==. Lisps have all kinds of things. In many cases you can end up with asymmetry that violates people's mathemeatical expectations of equality (Clojure's == is only commutative when used with two args, with 3 it gets slightly weird). jack. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
