Andrew Koenig <ark-mlist at att.net>: > There are certainly more than three meaningful forms of equivalence. I > claim, however, that these three forms already have special status in the > language, because it is implementation-defined whether two occurrences of > the same string literal refer to the same object. But this special status is only spelled out for certain fully-immutable objects, for which your "substitutability" relation is equivalent to "==". In all of this, I've yet to see a single use case put forward where it would be *wrong* to use "==" instead of "substitutability", let alone one frequently enough encountered to be worth adding a new operator or changing the semantics of an existing one. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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