On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009-10-27 09:07:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu > <[email protected]> said: > >> My current thought is to ascribe lhs ~ rhs the same type as lhs (thereby >> making ~ consistent with ~= by making lhs ~= rhs same as lhs = lhs ~ rhs) in >> case lhs is a string type. If lhs is a character type, the result type is >> obviously the same as rhs. > > Seems the most intuitive option to me. Also, it makes "a ~= b" equivalent to > "a = a ~ b" which is always nice.
And that kind of suggests to me that even a = b should work. It has many of the same characteristics as ~=. It's pretty unambiguous what you'd expect to happen if not an error. --bb
