On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:27, David Green wrote:
> However, what I'm wondering is whether Order::Same is "but true" and
> the others "but false"? (Which makes cmp in boolean context the same
> as eqv, but it seems to make sense that way.)
OTOH, C programmers can as well assume 'cmp' being an
I don't know if I've made this clear, but over the last few years I've
been treating "but True" and "but False" as design smells. They're
fine as a workaround for dire circumstances and uncooperative types,
but you'll not find me designing very many of the core interfaces to
use them, or other run
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:27:21AM -0600, David Green wrote:
: However, what I'm wondering is whether Order::Same is "but true" and
: the others "but false"? (Which makes cmp in boolean context the same
: as eqv, but it seems to make sense that way.)
We should not be encouraging people to use c
On 8/17/06, Reed, Mark (TBS) wrote:
S03, lines 418-420: "[cmp] always returns C,
C, or C (which numerify to -1, 0, or +1)."
Shouldn't Order::Increase numerify to +1 and Order::Decrease to -1? In
which case it would be clearer to put them in respective order above...
Maybe you could view it e
-- Original message --
From: "Reed, Mark (TBS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> S03, lines 418-420: "[cmp] always returns C,
> C, or C (which numerify to -1, 0, or +1)."
>
> Shouldn't Order::Increase numerify to +1 and Order::Decrease to -1? In
> which case it would be cl
