Rod Adams writes: > Luke Palmer wrote: > > >Admittedly, if you use == for everything, you can force string or > >numeric comparison this way: > > > > if +$a == +$b {...} # numeric > > if ~$a == ~$b {...} # string > > > > > Hmm. > In my head, I would expect == to have implicit numification on the > operands (unless user-overloaded to something else, but that's > different). In turn, I'd expect eq to have implicit stringifies.
> Therefore I'd expect the +'s to redundant in the first example. > > I'd then expect the second example to first convert $a and $b to strings > because of the ~'s, then, because it sees the ==, it would numify those > strings and do a numeric compare. > > Are my expectations misaligned here? Oh, sorry, wasn't clear. That's *if* eq was eliminated and == became a polymorphic operator. You're correct in terms of the current (and hopefully continuing) state of things. Luke