Michael Rys wrote: > And why can't you write the function yourself? I said I could; see the original post. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003May/0171.html > I am not convinced yet that such a function has a general enough value. OK. > Also note that the more functions the WG is defining, the longer it will > take until implementations will have fully conformant implementations. > > I would much rather have an incremental development of the function > library and continue to add functions over time. This means that you > need to postpone functions that have less general value for a later > version. OK. > And your function below for me falls into the postponing category for > the following reasons: > > 1. I still don't fully understand the semantics > 2. The semantics that I infer from your description (shallow-equal) is > in my opinion both cheap enough to write yourself no doubt (I didn't state the contrary to the latter) > and not general enough > a function to be included. I think it is general enough; if a definition can be found that most agree upon. Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 03:40:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:59 GMT