25 Apr
2010
25 Apr
'10
8:08 p.m.
Hi Tobias,
- if EQL is modified, then EQUAL must be modified as well because
(eql x y) should always imply (equal x y)
EQUAL does not internally call EQL? If that's indeed not the case, perhaps it should be made so?
- if we have freedom to modify EQL and EQUAL, then I'd say that EQUAL
should call Object.equals(), but I know this is controversial
No that would be false reasoning IMHO. The only reason why it's acceptable to extend EQL that way is because the Notes section in EQL kind of implies (albeit does not spell it out explicitly) certain implementational freedom in the interplay of EQ and EQL.
That's an additional - and compelling - argument, if you ask me.
Let's go for it.
Bye,
Erik.