> So identity means the same object, and implies equivalence. Yes. > Equivalence means they will always have the same value, even > if you do something to one and not the other. This implies > (current value) equality. Yes, unless equality is defined weirdly. For example, IEEE floating-point NaN is supposed to be unequal to itself. > equality just means that they have the same value *now*. I'm not sure the implication goes the other way. Consider a string-like type for which == ignores case. Then equivalence implies identity, but not the other way. > Since equivalence is a stronger form of equality, why not > just use "===". Seems plausible. > Anything that is === will also be ==, but the extra character > will mark it as special. If the mark isn't strong enough, > perhaps "=~="; in math the ~ often modifies equality to mean > "not identical, but close enough". I wish. But unfortunately sometimes x == x is False. > equal_forever would also work, and be explicit. equal_forever > has the additional advantage that it could be written as a > function rather than an operator during a trial period. Indeed. I'd prefer something shorter, though, such as equiv.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4