Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:26298] Re: String#== : Why not error with different type?"
    on 01/11/24, Ryo Furue <furufuru / ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:

|Then, the problem is: What is the most "natural" (intuitive)
|definition of '==' ?  I'd like to argue that most programmers think
|(or "feel") they are comparing "values" in their mindset when they say
|'=='; they don't (usually) think they are comparing values *and*
|types.

Ah, this is the point.  In dynamic way of thinking, objects are
values.  You don't have to separate type and values.  You don't have
to think about types.

Most Ruby programmers think they are comparing "objects" whether they
are close enough.

Introducing type checks too much may reduce flexibility of dynamic
typed languages.  Dave Thomas would talk you about "duck typing",
maybe.

							matz.