From: Han Holl <han@...>
Date: 2002-06-10T00:54:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Hash#===()

Kent Dahl wrote:

>Han Holl wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes,  like a test for set membership. It seems
>>intuitive to me.
>>    
>>
>
>I'd be more inclined to alias it to the Enumerable#include? myself. That
>is, unless someone does use Hash#=== for something as is. (Doesn't it
>just go up to Object#=== and degenerate into a == as it is now?)
>  
>
I believe it does. My point is that Hash#=== doesn't have a useful purpose
now, and I wanted to propose to have the above meaning.
I'm a bit nervous about aliasing operations on builtin classes.
What if some ruby extension has a brillant use for Hash#=== ?
To be safe, I will have to unalias when I'm done.

Therefore I propose this as a default interpretation. My benchmarks were
just to show that it's quite reasonable from a performance standpoint as
well.

Re-aliasing Enumerable#include? seems even scarier.

Cheers,

Han Holl