Larry wrote:
Or we could have a different operator that coerces like == and eq, only
via .snap:
if [1,2,3] equals [1,2,3] { say "true" } else { say "false" }
(Actual name negotiable, of course). The advantage of the latter approach
is that you can say
@foo >>equals<< @bar
and the .snaps are automatically distributed. Otherwise you'd have to say
@foo<<.snap >>eqv<< @bar<<.snap
which is a pain. On top of which, equals doesn't actually have to
implemented in terms of .snap--it could just compare the current
values of the mutable objects directly. (Just as =:= doesn't have
to be implemented in terms of .id.)
Just a meta-point...one thing we really do need to be careful of is not ending
up with 17 different "equality" operators (like certain languages I shall
refrain from naming). So far we're contemplating:
=:=
~~
==
eq
eqv
equals
Do we really need even that many???
Damian
