On 9/2/15 2:57 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
In this case the solution/workaround is to explicitly call super.opEquals, but that will miss some optimizations implemented in object.opEquals.
Those optimizations have already been exploited by the time you get to Foo.opEquals, so I wouldn't worry about that.
However, the avoidance of casting would be a good goal. One of the things I don't like about the current == implementation for objects is it cannot take any advantage of type knowledge at the call site.
-Steve
