Damian Conway wrote: > > > This RFC proposes that numeric comparison operators default to stringwise > > > comparison when both arguments are non-numeric strings. > > > > > The problem with this, is that we're removing orthogonality from the > > language. > > ROTFL. But it's true. The semantics of == vs eq is currently very well defined and distinct. The proposal muddies the distinctions. The thing that allows you to LOL is precisely the thing which should motivate us to not reduce Perl's already low orthogonality quotient without very compelling reasons. -- John Porter
- RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparisons Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Jean-Louis Leroy
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic compar... John Porter
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic compar... Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic compar... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic co... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphi... Clayton Scott
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polym... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polym... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparison... Michael Fowler