Draft proposal: allow the use of relational operators on Comparable classes

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

.... hence the reference to "A way to specify you're on 'new mode'  
java".  And the idea that it's far too ambitious for Project Coin.

  --Reinier Zwitserloot
Like it? Tip it!
http://tipit.to



On Mar 11, 2009, at 00:57, rssh at gradsoft.com.ua wrote:

>> In languages with both == and ===, the == is more like .equals(), and
>> the === is more like java's ==. Making them the reverse in java is a
>> really really bad idea. I'd far rather have a way to specify that
>> you're on 'new mode' java, and have == imply equals, and remove  
>> object
>> identity altogether; it's just not a relevant operation. Shove it off
>> to a java.lang library call. That's what we did with System.arrayCopy
>> too, and that was clearly a good idea.
>>
>
> This will break a lot of code. Better find better symbol :)
>
>
>
>
>>  --Reinier Zwitserloot
>> Like it? Tip it!
>> http://tipit.to
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 00:51, rssh at gradsoft.com.ua wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, would have sense with addition of symbol for equality check:
>>> ('==='
>>> ?)
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've attached a draft of a proposal to allow classes which
>>>> implement the
>>>> Comparable interface to be used as operands for the relational
>>>> operators.
>>>> So
>>>> for example if you had two Strings, a and b, you would be able to
>>>> write
>>>>
>>>> if (a < b) {
>>>>   ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> instead of
>>>>
>>>> if (a.compareTo(b) < 0) {
>>>>   ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and you could do the same with your own classes as well.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for any feedback,
>>>>
>>>> Vil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>