We may have 2 representations here, the DateAndTime object and the string. If you consider that the string�'1901-01-01T00:00:00+12:00' actually represents that day and time and it's not just the way you would print it, then I think it's valid to compare one representation and another of the same concept, because they really mean the same to you.

If you see�'1901-01-01T00:00:00+12:00' and say "that's not a date and time, it's just how I'd print it" maybe the only valid representation of the date and time for you is a DateAndTime object, then it doesn't make sense comparing de DateAndTime object with it's string.

Personally, I think the string it's just the "print string", I agree with you. But maybe originally the people who implemented that comparison considered it as a date and time representation too, so it makes sense to compare them.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:22 AM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

>
> I would expect = to be
> "reflexive" � � � self assert: (a = a).
> "symmetric" � self assert: (a = b) ==> (b = a).
> "transitive" � � �self assert: (a = b) & (b = c) ==> (a = c).
>
> Date>>= does not seem to meet my expectations

Yes the more I think about it the more I'm against this automatic conversion.

Stef

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project