From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-06-27T18:04:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Java equality usage

------=_Part_60450_27021492.1151399008018
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/27/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rober, thanks and thanks. I think you are right. I am a little sad
> because I have hoped to find a good answer to this, so that others
> will have a good reference for this subject and will not have to pass
> through phylosophical times as I had when reading for the first time
> about equality in Ruby.
>
> Unfortunately, even if I play with Ruby for almost 2 years, I don't
> consider that I have enough knowledge to come up with authoritative
> posts, so this is the reason for my mildy posts. If this would have
> been on a Java subject, things would have been completely different
> ;-), but here I just try to keep myself "low profile" and extract as
> information as possible.


You are doing a great job.

Still, I have formulated a conclusion in the previous post, and that
> will be the one that will go to the entry for update:
>
> #eql? is just syntactic sugar of #=3D=3D, needed for objects used as keys
> in hashes (because hash implementation doesn't like to use #=3D=3D, but
> only #eql?). If your class needs to override #=3D=3D, than just delegate
> #eql? implementation to #=3D=3D.


Please be aware that this is in contradiction to the official documentation=
.
Maybe the doc is wrong but nobody has claimed that so far.
It will also break Hash lookup unless the reimplementation of #=3D=3D is ve=
ry
careful!
( I will try to demonstrate this as soon as I have a little time )

Hopefully everybody is backing me up on this one even if they think that is
how it *should* be. Right now it is *not* how it is.

Cheers
Robert

cheers and once again thanks,
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
> ---
> (http://themindstorms.blogspot.com)
>
>
>
> On 6/27/06, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ... and still wondering how is this answering my question (however
> > > thanks for the intention).
> >
> >
> > Sorry for being blunt,  you have  started a thread, but that does not
> mean
> > that the thread will stay focused on your initial question, many long
> > threads do not.
> > At the beginning of course 90% of the posters will try to do so, and so
> did
> > I but than things
> > will take a natural drift depending on the point of views of the
> posters.
> >
> > I am sorry if you feel you did not get enough out of your question but
> these
> > things happen :(.
> > On the other hand you have created a thread that has generated a
> > philosophical and civilized discussion, that is already a marvellous
> thing
> > :).
> >
> > Now I would love to answer your question but maybe it would be easier i=
f
> you
> > take a stronger position, like e.g. I think overriding =3D=3D is harmfu=
ll
> > because or something like this.
> >
> > I strongly feel that there is no *answer*, points of views shift slowly=
,
> > they do not jump, they depend so much on what you read or do.
> > A majority of people - of course I am not in, as usual :( - agree with
> your
> > pov, that also is something you should cheer about ;)
> >
> > Just my pov, hopefully cheered you up a bit.
> > Robert
> >
> > ./alex
> > > --
> > > .w( the_mindstorm )p.
> > > ---
> > > (http://themindstorms.blogspot.com)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


--=20
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------=_Part_60450_27021492.1151399008018--