On Monday 25 March 2013, David Cole wrote: > I know. I understand your motivation, and that the present state of > affairs is less than desirable. > > However, I still object to your patch on two grounds: > > (1) Using the name "==" implies that it is doing an equivalence > comparison, similar to C / C++, where the same named operator may be > used with multiple types of left and right hand sides. > > If we had it in CMake, one *should* logically be able to infer that any > type of comparison would be possible: string, variable, int or float > numbers, versions. But that wouldn't be true, and so people would have > to re-learn their intuition about == and it would just be strange for > almost everyone.
Yes, the "==" would actually do what would be more expected from "STREQUAL". > (2) We already have 2 ways of doing EQUAL comparisons, and this would > be a 3rd, without being complete, and without eliminating either of the > other ways... > > This 3rd way, while having the nice feature of doing what you want > w.r.t. string values, and not doing variable value lookup, would ADD to > the confusion still more because it is counter-intuitive as noted above. > > Sorry, I just don't see this as a good addition overall. No problem :-) Alex -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers