Re: [RFC] Comparison and conversion inconsistency - need more info

On 10/11/2013 19:59, Sanford Whiteman wrote:

( -1 < true ) // false, because the two compare equal and the comparison must return a bool ( min( -1,true ) ) // -1, because the two compare equal and -1 was passed first ( min( true,-1 ) ) // true, because the two compare equal and true was passed first Absolutely consistent with documentation. Pay attention to the final return type of a simple comparison vs. comparisons wrapped in the min() function. -- S.

Thanks, I thought there was probably an obvious explanation. Effectively, they're equal, so which of them is lower is "undefined"; min() made one assumption (whichever came first), my dummy function with < made the other (whichever came second, because it fell into the else{}). -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]