On 2015-09-02 22:25, w0rp wrote:
Yeah, I would just call super.opEquals, like so.
I know that's the workaround, but the question is if it's a good implementation/behavior of opEquals.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
On 2015-09-02 22:25, w0rp wrote:
Yeah, I would just call super.opEquals, like so.
I know that's the workaround, but the question is if it's a good implementation/behavior of opEquals.
-- /Jacob Carlborg