- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:00:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2535 ------- Additional Comments From mike@saxonica.com 2005-11-18 21:00 ------- You're trying to fix one inconsistency by introducing another much bigger one. You say that two things that are deep-equal() ought to be =, but you don't say why. It seems to be purely an aesthetic judgement. To achieve this by changing the semantics of "=", which would (a) be backwards incompatible, and (b) destroy the general principle that A = B implies (some $a in A, $b in B satisifes $a eq $b) would not be a net gain. Note also that (() eq ()) is (), which in most contexts (e.g. EBV) is treated as false. Incidentally, it's far too late to be suggesting changes based on usability or aesthetics. We're strictly in bug-fixing mode now. Michael Kay personal response
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 21:00:30 UTC