Regarding the == instead of =, the only thing I can think of is identity checking of small integers, where in VW you get some improvement by using == instead of =. IIRC, I measured 25% faster in a loop that just did == as opposed to =. But, of course, using that kind of code is asking for trouble. John M McIntosh 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 <johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = ========================================================================