On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:53:20 +0200, TSa wrote:
HaloO Yuval,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
What is the implication of from the perspective of
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
No, the role installs homogenious targets into the generic
binary-MMD comparator which I think is called eqv.
Err, why? We already have that with regular MMD semantics.
role Num {
multi *infix:eqv ($x:, Num $y) { $x == $y }
}
What you mean is double
HaloO Yuval,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
What is the implication of from the perspective of the person using
Object, Num and Str?
Do they have
HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
Just a meta-point...one thing we really do need to be careful of is not
ending up with 17 different equality operators (like certain languages
I shall refrain from naming). So far we're contemplating:
=:=
~~
==
eq
eqv
equals
Do we really
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 16:57:30 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
This is what the operators mean to me:
=:=
The right side and the left are the same thing, in the sense that:
$x =:= $y; # if this is true
$x.mutating_method; # and one side is changed
$x =:= $y; #
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
Just a meta-point...one thing we really do need to be careful of is not
ending up with 17 different equality operators (like certain languages I
shall refrain from naming). So far we're
contemplating:
Larry wrote:
Or we could have a different operator that coerces like == and eq, only
via .snap:
if [1,2,3] equals [1,2,3] { say true } else { say false }
(Actual name negotiable, of course). The advantage of the latter approach
is that you can say
@foo equals @bar
and the
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 16:32:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, well, I don't think op is valid syntax, but you did say
semantics, so I can't criticize that part. :-)
What is , btw?
Is it
circumfix:{'',''} (Code op -- Code); # takes some code, returns
a listop
or
I don't like eqv, because it's ugly, inconsistent with anything else
in Perl 6, especially , ||, and ^^. It might be forced to fit into
the and, or, and xor family, but you'd expect to find 'eq' there,
and that's not what it means.
IMHO == is as generic as and ||, and is even more like ^^ since
Hi,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
I think this is more consistent, and just as useful:
10 == 10; # dispatches to num
10 == 10; # dispatched to Num, by means of coercion (== has some
affinity to it for backwards compatibility) 10 == 10; # dispatches
to Str, due to better match 10.0 == 10; # unlike
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 18:15:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
sorry, I've some problems with this proposal:
== has always meant numeric equality in Perl and I'd like it to stay
that way.
For simple values like numbers and strings == is numberic, because
it's affinity to it.
snip
10 ==
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: 10 == 10; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
Nope, that will continue to coerce to numeric comparison. The design
team did in fact consider pure equivalence MMD dispatch of == in
the last meeting, but rejected it in
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:28:01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: 10 == 10; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
Nope, that will continue to coerce to numeric comparison. The design
team did in fact consider pure equivalence
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:43:46AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:28:01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:19:33PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: : 10 == 10; # dispatches to Str, due to better match
:
: Nope, that will continue to coerce to numeric
14 matches
Mail list logo
