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 < johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> 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 = = = ========================================================================
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project