--- mlazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Austin Hastings wrote: > > It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about > > this, and I for one am in favor of the general version of it. > > The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz: > > C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to > > C<$a =:= $b>, because I'm reading that as "equals, under > > assignment". > > What was decided about the adverbial ops -- did we ever get a > confirmation or rejection on that proposal, or did it die in the > ether?
I'd still like to know as well. I must've missed it. > I like the idea lots (though I still would argue that > identity-compare =:= is important enough conceptually to be > a separate case.) I *disagree* with that, though only in principle. I don't want the code to require a lot of special cases. That was one of P5's problems. Larry&co are doing a beautiful job of designing a system by which the language is systematically and semantically consistent. Admittedly, I'm not doing any of the under-the-hood design, but for the sake of those who are as well as my own, I'd rather see the smallest possible number of "seperate case" situations. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
