Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2005
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
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next