Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Jeff Hill" <[email protected]> · Tue, 4 Oct 2005 06:55:48 -0600

> BTW, is this operation (i.e. what was formerly named "==" on PCs)
> supposed to do conversions before comparing values? Or is it defined as
> "foreach matching propertyId: same type && same value"?

The operator, formerly (but not formally) known as == :-), was defined to be
for everything in the LHS there must be an identically named property in the
RHS who are identical after conversions that do not loose information. I
agree that "match" is a better name for that. I did have a comment in the
code questioning the validity of the current approach.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Franksen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 6:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: data access structures, strings
> 
> On Wednesday 28 September 2005 15:06, Marty Kraimer wrote:
> > Should  == (or equals) always guarantee that it is an equivalence
> > relation?
> >
> > That is
> >
> > 1) reflexive =>  x==x is always true
> > 2) symetric  => if x==y then y==x
> > 3) transitive => if x==y and y==z then x==z
> 
> Yes, definitely. For an asymmetric operation, I would propose the method
> name "match" or "matches".
> 
> BTW, is this operation (i.e. what was formerly named "==" on PCs)
> supposed to do conversions before comparing values? Or is it defined as
> "foreach matching propertyId: same type && same value"?
> 
> Ben

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System