- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:51:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2535 ------- Additional Comments From steve.tolkin@fmr.com 2005-11-18 21:51 ------- I understand everything that Michael Kay said in his last post, and it is all true. Howevere it is also true that under the current defintion of deep-equals comparing two empty sequences would be the one exception to the rule that deep-equals implies equals (=). A simple fix to the definition of deep-equals would be to add "A = B", i.e., Two sequences A and B are deep-equal if A = B and count(A) = count(B) and every $n in (1 to count(A)) satisfies deep-equal(A[$n], B[$n]). Of course implementations would know that the first clause only matters in the case of 2 empty sequences.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 21:51:35 UTC