Re: Re: Minor engine patch to facilitate PECL/operator

Hello Zeev, Friday, February 17, 2006, 12:09:26 PM, you wrote: > At 11:55 17/02/2006, Stefan Walk wrote: >>On 16/02/06, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: >> > In languages where operator overloading is supported, it comes hand >> > in hand with strict typing, which wouldn't allow for different values >> > for x>y and y<x... >> > >> > Zeev >> >>That's not true, Ruby for example has operator overloading, and has no >>problems with different meanings of x>y and y<x (but i don't know a >>core class that does that). > I mean *real* languages :) Seriously though, it sounds like a bad > idea to allow it. >>Also, PHP already breaks the transitivity rule for the equality >>operator ($a == $b and $b == $c does not imply $a == $c), so there's >>not much new evil if a user can, by loading an extension, break the >>symmetry of the comparison operators, IMO. > Oh I disagree. While we do have some unique cases in which > transitivity is not maintained, they are quite, well, unique, and > arguably make sense. > More importantly, the discussion here is not about transitivity > (although it does have transitivity implications). It's more > fundamental, it's about the very meaning of smaller-than / > greater-than and the relationship between them. Actually Sara only asked whether she could add a flag to some handlers. That has nothing to with anything you started to discuss from there. Best regards, Marcus