[ruby-talk:5144] Re: Types and ===

Well, Aleksi,

You and Conrad are certainly following the
Principle of Greatest Surprise.

But seriously, folks!

Can we tweak the universe so that x===y
always means y===x? Any reason why we
shouldn't?

Ask yourself this: Why is the case limb expression
the receiver instead of the tested expression being
the receiver? (I.e., we say "case other; when receiver..."
not "case receiver; when other...")

This means that when x is a string and y is a pattern,
x =~ y means y===x. Why not x =~ y means x===y?
Or why not (as I am really thinking) have both mean
the same thing?

Hal

----- Original Message -----
From: Aleksi Niemel<[e-mail]>
To: ruby-talk ML <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:02 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:5143] Re: Types and ===


> Hal asks:
> > # Are there any two types X and Y such that  x===y and y===x both have
> > # meaning, and mean different things?
>
> Conrad helps:
> > Do relations like inside ... count as === case candidates?
>
> <friendly_note>
> Now comes a lot of meaningless discussion, so if you're busy you should
skip
> to the last paragraphs.
> </friendly_note>
>

   [snip snip snip, and again I say, snip!]