------art_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 #==, needed for objects used as keys
> in hashes (because hash implementation doesn't like to use #==, but
> only #eql?). If your class needs to override #==, than just delegate
> #eql? implementation to #==.


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 #== is very
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 if
> you
> > take a stronger position, like e.g. I think overriding == is harmfull
> > 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)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


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

- Albert Einstein

------art_60450_27021492.1151399008018--