I would not change the meaning of ==, that is "the same object".
Right now 100 factorial == 100 factorial is false, and should stay the same.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM, John M McIntosh
<[hidden email]> wrote:
On 9-Jul-09, at 5:58 AM, Hernan Wilkinson wrote:
> So, Stef, what do we do? :-)
> I think we have discussed very interesting things is this thread. My
> conclusions are:
> 4) Go back to how things were
+1
Frankly I think you could reuse '==' for the *exact* compare between
two items in the Number hierarchy
and leave '=' as the yes they are *equal* but not the same....
then you could really rummage about and fix/explain/justify why
29347921734912734927349279273499274 ==
(29347921734912734927349279273499274-1+1) is false and explain why
in the same manner as saying (1/10) == 0.1 is false, & resolve why 0.1
== (0.1-0.01+0.01) is false yet 10 == (10-1+1) is true.
And yes people do things like use '==' for numbers, for the strangest
reasons.
--
=
=
=
========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <
[hidden email]> Twitter:
squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.
http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
=
=
=
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Locked
