I've been reading all the messages on string comparisons, and propose the following:

Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those are by value. Introduce two new operators, === and !==, to do a by-value comparison for arrays. Similarly, for class objects, == and != will compare the references, and === and !== will call the equals() function in the Object base class.

Walter wrote:
> I've been reading all the messages on string comparisons, and propose the
> following:
> 
> Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those are
> by value. Introduce two new operators, === and !==, to do a by-value
> comparison for arrays. Similarly, for class objects, == and != will compare
> the references, and === and !== will call the equals() function in the
> Object base class.

I'd strongly prefer the other way around -- use value semantics
for == and !=, and reference semantics for === and !==.

-Russell B

Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a7r7ok$1ing$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've been reading all the messages on string comparisons, and propose the following:
>
> Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those
are
> by value. Introduce two new operators, === and !==, to do a by-value comparison for arrays. Similarly, for class objects, == and != will
compare
> the references, and === and !== will call the equals() function in the
> Object base class.
>
>

Sounds great... when do you expect we may see it in action?

Gary.

Russell Borogove <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in news:3CA124F2.1010802@estarcion.com:

> Walter wrote:
>> I've been reading all the messages on string comparisons, and propose the following:

> I'd strongly prefer the other way around
> -- use value semantics
> for == and !=,
> and reference semantics for === and !==.
> 
> -Russell B

2 votes.

Programmer will need much more comparating values of arrays than references. Compare the statistics of use and choose the implementation.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in news:a7r7ok$1ing$2@digitaldaemon.com:

> Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those are
> 

I dont know why ?
Strings comparation dont is a good example ?

J.

"Juarez Rudsatz" <juarez@correio.com> wrote in message news:Xns91DDEEF3F4733juarezcom@63.105.9.61...

> > Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those are
> >
>
> I dont know why ?
> Strings comparation dont is a good example ?

Array _references_, not contents.
When you compare strings, you compare contents.

"Juarez Rudsatz" <juarez@correio.com> wrote in message news:Xns91DDEEB1A3B8Ejuarezcom@63.105.9.61...

> 2 votes.
>
> Programmer will need much more comparating values of arrays than
references.
> Compare the statistics of use and choose the implementation.

Agreed (so 3 already).

However, I wouldn't really mind if it was vice versa. I just like comparison by value to be default more.

"Russell Borogove" <kaleja@estarcion.com> wrote in message news:3CA124F2.1010802@estarcion.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those
are
> > by value. Introduce two new operators, === and !==, to do a by-value comparison for arrays. Similarly, for class objects, == and != will
compare
> > the references, and === and !== will call the equals() function in the
> > Object base class.
> I'd strongly prefer the other way around -- use value semantics for == and !=, and reference semantics for === and !==.

That idea has great merit, but I worry that == being a reference comparison for, say, Object references, would just cause too much confusion.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:a7r7ok$1ing$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've been reading all the messages on string comparisons, and propose the following:
>
> Since <, <=, >, >= make little sense on dynamic array references, those
are
> by value. Introduce two new operators, === and !==, to do a by-value comparison for arrays. Similarly, for class objects, == and != will
compare
> the references, and === and !== will call the equals() function in the
> Object base class.

Two questions:

1 - Waht about assignment?

    Object1 a;
    Object1 b;

    a = b;  // by-reference assignment
    ????    // by-value assignment?

2 - What about integrating this syntax with pointers? Like this:
    int *p;
    int *q;
    ...
    ----
    if (p === q)
      ...
    ----
       is the same as  :
    ----
    if (*p == *q)
      ...
    ----

Ciao

"Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini@lycosmail.com> wrote in message news:a7rutn$1va1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 1 - Waht about assignment?
>
>     Object1 a;
>     Object1 b;
>
>     a = b;  // by-reference assignment
>     ????    // by-value assignment?

I was thinking of a dup() method in Object.

> 2 - What about integrating this syntax with pointers? Like this:
>     int *p;
>     int *q;
>     ...
>     ----
>     if (p === q)
>       ...
>     ----
>        is the same as  :
>     ----
>     if (*p == *q)

Yes, that would be consistent.