New Operator Idea: *== (array value comparison operator) (page 2)

Walter wrote: > "Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message > news:3C2A1913.9050303@estarcion.com... >>Do you anticipate wanting to compare slices for reference >>identity rather than for content identity? >> > > Yes. > > >>It's a little >>perlesque/DWIMy, but could you treat slice syntax differently >>in comparison expressions than in assignment or other >>expressions? >> > > Each special case adds complexity, that doesn't mean it is not worth doing, > the case just has to be fairly compelling. > Okay, well, then, let's get back to thinking of a good operator to use for array content comparison. if (a $= b) // "string equal" to speakers of BASIC if (a []= b) // "array equal" if (a === b) // because = and == aren't confusing enuf -RB

December 27, 2001

Re: New Operator Idea: *== (array value comparison operator)

Posted by Walter
in reply to Russell Borogove

Permalink

Walter

Posted in reply to Russell Borogove

Permalink

"Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message news:3C2B67E5.20207@estarcion.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> > "Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message news:3C2A1913.9050303@estarcion.com...
> >>Do you anticipate wanting to compare slices for reference identity rather than for content identity?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >>It's a little
> >>perlesque/DWIMy, but could you treat slice syntax differently
> >>in comparison expressions than in assignment or other
> >>expressions?
> >>
> >
> > Each special case adds complexity, that doesn't mean it is not worth
doing,
> > the case just has to be fairly compelling.
> >
>
>
> Okay, well, then, let's get back to thinking of a good operator to use for array content comparison.
>
>     if (a $= b)     // "string equal" to speakers of BASIC
>     if (a []= b)    // "array equal"
>     if (a === b)    // because = and == aren't confusing enuf

The idea:

    a [==] b
    a [<] b
    a [>=] b

is sort of appealing <g>.

Walter wrote: > "Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message > news:3C2B67E5.20207@estarcion.com... >>Okay, well, then, let's get back to thinking of a good operator to >>use for array content comparison. >> >> if (a $= b) // "string equal" to speakers of BASIC >> if (a []= b) // "array equal" >> if (a === b) // because = and == aren't confusing enuf >> > > The idea: > > a [==] b > a [<] b > a [>=] b > > is sort of appealing <g>. > > > Works for me, but then, I'm twisted. -R

"Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message news:3C2B67E5.20207@estarcion.com... > Okay, well, then, let's get back to thinking of a good operator to use for array content comparison. > > if (a $= b) // "string equal" to speakers of BASIC I'm a BASIC geek myself and would never ever consider $= "string equality"...

Pavel Minayev wrote: > Perl maybe? > > if (a eq b) ... > if (a !eq b) ... No, not this. We want something that will work with comparing multidimensional arrays to an arbitrary depth, IMHO. So I think it should be == with some sort of qualifier, such as *==, []==, or [==] -- The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com .[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ] .[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ] ?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C2BA7D3.7D2ED7A@deming-os.org... > Pavel Minayev wrote: > > > Perl maybe? > > > > if (a eq b) ... > > if (a !eq b) ... > > No, not this. We want something that will work with comparing multidimensional arrays to an arbitrary depth, IMHO. So I think it should be == with some sort of qualifier, such as *==, []==, or [==] Too long to type. I'd prefer something not longer than 2 chars (since string comparison is a frequent operation).

I was about to suggest *=, but then it's got an overloaded meaning between multiplication-in-place and comparision, which I don't think is good: char a[]; char b[]; int c; a *= c; // multiples each element by c a *= b; // string compares a and b -- The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com .[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ] .[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ] ?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C2CDA64.B13E6C78@deming-os.org... > I was about to suggest *=, but then it's got an overloaded meaning between multiplication-in-place and comparision, which I don't think is good: > > char a[]; > char b[]; > int c; > a *= c; // multiples each element by c > a *= b; // string compares a and b Definitely. For same reason I didn't suggest ~=. For now I tend to like that ~~ thingie I proposed not long ago. It's fast to type, consists of one character repeated twice like ==, and associates with ~ which concats _arrays_ in contrast to + which sums their _contents_. It also makes possible to define a whole set of comparison ops for arrays: ~~ equal !~ not equal ~> greater than ~< less than ~>= greater than or equal ~<= less than or equal

Forums