Re: Getting rid of Object#equal?()?

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Getting rid of Object#equal?()?"
>     on Fri, 6 May 2005 09:26:58 +0900, Saynatkari <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> |>I'm not motivated too much to remove "equal?".  I assume Ruby users
> |>smart enough to distinguish above three without any confusion once
> |>they are told.  Are there any reason to remove?
> |
> |I suppose it is not a huge source of bugs; however, the term
> |'equal' does not mean 'same'--although it may be implied--and
> |currently the same word (eql and equal) is used for two different
> |meanings.
> 
> If it's not a source of bugs, why bother?  Lisp have even more (=, eq,
> eql, equal and equalp).

Not a *great* source of bugs, no, although I am sure that it is not
uncommon either. The problem is mainly that it is somewhat unintuitive.
I have to look it up every time and looks like  flgr, too, so a clearer 
naming convention might be in order. Clarity is never bad!

Actually changing the semantics of the defined methods would probably
cause a lot of breakage so I figured standard aliases would yield the
best result.

> 							matz.
> 
> 

E

-- 
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }