David Green writes:
On 8/13/06, Smylers wrote:
Please could the proponets of the various behaviours being discussed
here share a few more concrete examples ...
OK,
Thanks for that. In summary, if I've understood you correctly, it's
that:
=:= two aliases to the same actual variable
David Green schreef:
===
...is equality-of-contents, basically meaning that the things you're
comparing contain the same [...] values.
How about strings; are normalized copies used with the === ?
http://www.unicode.org/faq/normalization.html
http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn5/
--
Affijn,
On 8/14/06, Smylers wrote:
David Green writes:
Thanks for that. In summary, if I've understood you correctly, it's that:
=:= two aliases to the same actual variable
=== one variable contains a copy of the other's actual contents
eqv both contain contents which represent the same thing
On July 14th Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 11:42:24 +0100, Smylers wrote:
I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am
On 8/13/06, Smylers wrote:
Please could the proponets of the various behaviours being discussed
here share a few more concrete examples which start by explaning a
scenario in which there is a desire to do something, preferably one
that Perl 5 coders can identify with, and then show how
Way back on 7/14/06, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:19:24PM -0600, David Green wrote:
[...]
No, === is also deep. It's only shallower (or potentially shallower)
in the sense that it treats any mutable object node as a leaf node
rather than changing to snapshot semantics like
I think that Jonathan meant for his reply to my message to go to the
list, so I am including it in its entirety, in my reply.
At 11:23 PM -0700 7/13/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
So the purpose of === is to provide a means of comparison that doesn't
Yuval Kogman writes:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs
=:=.
I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 11:42:24 +0100, Smylers wrote:
I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am struggling to retain a feeling of _why_ I
Yuval Kogman writes:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 11:42:24 +0100, Smylers wrote:
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am struggling to retain a feeling of _why_ I
would
Darren Duncan wrote:
Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
recommend having negated versions of all these various types of equality
tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be used very
frequently, I believe (and I have even tried to do so), and of
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are themselves immutable to all
levels of recursion, === then does a full deep copy like eqv. If at any
level we get a mutable object, then at that point it turns into =:= (a
trivial case) and stops.
( 1, 2.0, 3 ) === ( 1,2,3 )
Mark A. Biggar schreef:
Darren Duncan:
Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
equality tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be
used very frequently, I believe (and I have even tried
At 9:22 AM -0700 7/14/06, Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are
themselves immutable to all levels of
recursion, === then does a full deep copy like
eqv. If at any level we get a mutable object,
then at that point it turns into =:= (a trivial
At 6:55 PM +0200 7/14/06, Dr.Ruud wrote:
say foo if $x !== $y;
into
say foo unless $x === $y;
And how about symmetry:
say foo unless $y === $x;
very unreliable.
Any equality or inequality operator is commutative, so it doesn't
matter whether you have $x and $y or $y and $x,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
: recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
: equality tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be
: used very frequently, I
At 12:55 PM -0700 7/14/06, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote (edited):
: Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
: recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
: equality tests. Eg, !=== for ===, !eqv for
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:22:10 -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are themselves immutable to all
levels of recursion, === then does a full deep copy like eqv. If at any
level we get a mutable object, then at
that point it turns into
Darren Duncan schreef:
Dr.Ruud:
say foo if $x !== $y;
into
say foo unless $x === $y;
And how about symmetry:
say foo unless $y === $x;
Any equality or inequality operator is commutative,
If $x and $y are not of the same type, and one or both of the involved
types has its own
On 7/14/06, David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect.
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:19:24PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
: It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
: this is not perfect.
:
: I think I understand it... (my
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs
=:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect. Then again, I trust that Larry's opinion is
probably better and at the very least more likely to be accepted
than mine ;-) [1]
So, this
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: [1] My preferred ergonomics:
:
: 1. eqv goes away
: 2. what was eqv is renamed to ===
: 3. === becomes =:=, which has a constant feel to it
: 4. =:= is rarely useful IMHO, so you can just type
:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:50:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Then $a eqv $b and $a leg $b both just default to a signature that selects
: everything.
Though arguably P5's string-forcing semantics should be Cleg and the
polymorphic semantics should probably be Ccmp.
Larry
On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect.
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the syntax is that
=== and eqv look like spin-offs
David Green wrote:
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the syntax is that
=== and eqv look like spin-offs of == and eq, but I don't know what
to suggest instead (we're running short of combinations of = and : !))
Agreed.
So there are three basic kinds of comparison: whether the
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:50:19 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: [1] My preferred ergonomics:
:
: 1. eqv goes away
: 2. what was eqv is renamed to ===
: 3. === becomes =:=, which has a constant feel to it
: 4. =:= is
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 21:55:15 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Apparently, there are _four_ basic kinds of comparison: the ones
mentioned above, and == (I believe that eq works enough like == that
whatever can be said about one in relation to ===, =:=, or eqv can be
said about the other). I'd
Yuval Kogman wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Apparently, there are _four_ basic kinds of comparison: the ones
mentioned above, and == (I believe that eq works enough like == that
whatever can be said about one in relation to ===, =:=, or eqv can be
said about the other). I'd be quite interested
At 10:36 PM -0700 7/13/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
So the purpose of === is to provide a means of comparison that doesn't
implicitly coerce its arguments to a particular type?
Yes, absolutely. The === takes 2 arguments exactly as they are,
without changing anything, and says if they are two
30 matches
Mail list logo
