The equality operator should be used to invoke built in user defined equality functions as in C++. The syntax used by Java is cumbersome and un-intuitive. That was and is my original point. Since the vast majority of comparison are intended to be logical comparisons then the equality operator should have been used for this purpose.
I agree with you on most points. Unless you are saying that Lisp is a reasonable language. My point is this, in the context of Java 3 == 3. It doesn't care that both literals in different memory locations. So why should the equality operator work differently for classes ? Ex. classTim jim(3), Jim(3); Jim == jim should return true.
What the fuck are you talking about? 3 and 3.00 are not identical at the binary level: from a logical stand point they are the same. The equality operator works as expected in this case. So why should the equality operator behave differently for other types ? If I'm comparing objects I am most likely interested in a logical comparison and not in a comparison of their respective addresses.
No distribution required. Just having something that by passes the encryption is enough. My understanding of the law is this, If you break an encryption scheme which is used to protect copyrighted material then you've broken the DMCA.
Oh, but it is illegal to modify your own hardware. If you develop/modify/alter/create (etc..) a piece of hardware which breaks the CSS then you are in violation of the DMCA. That's where we're at.
More words... Where there is money to be had there is conflict. The MPAA represents lots of money. Even if the courts come down hard on the MPAA it'll figure something else out.
I didn't get to be head of the department because I'm a moron. I got to be head of the department because I..I..I.I.I'm not moron.
It is in congruous that in the spirit of hiding memory allocation, management and pointer manipulation for objects that equality operator doesn't perform its operation on de-referenced objects. This operation is the most common and should have the advantage of the simpler operator syntax.
Ok dip shit, I know the difference between an integer and IEEE floating point numbers. Do not presume that you need to lecture me on these points: I've been programming computers since 1972 and doing it as my sole source of income since 1986. I know many computer languages including a few assemblers. Now on to my point.
Logically 3 does equal 3.00. In any reasonable language if one compares the two with a simple equality operator it will return true. The built in operators should promote scalar types until operands are of a compatible type. So in C for instance the equality operator would promote 3 == 3.00 to 3.00 = 3.00. This is a convince. K & R could have said "Wait, let's not do this promotion thing but instead make everyone use a function call syntax to do the exact same thing!". This was extended in C++ to allow non-scalar comparisons so now one can write equality operators to do what ever one wants for a given pair of objects. This allows the developer to use the more intuitive, simpler and more readable operator syntax. The equality operator is nothing more than a function. Maybe you should learn that, Dweeb.
It's cumbersome and unnecessary, and yes 3.00 does equal 3. Just as the implementer of the equals function decides what equality between types means the implementer of an operator also decides what equality means between types.
Additionally, I don't need dweebs telling me what profession to be in.
Not just that, I mean come on it's a cross platform Visual Basic. Granted Java is more flexible than VB but if you need to stray from the confines of the library you are screwed. Java is an excellent language for what it is. Don't try to make it something it's not.
But this part I don't get. If Java is supposed to hide pointers from the developer then why does object equality compare pointers and not objects ? This makes no sense. The equality operator should work like the compare function and pointer comparison should work through a function.
So go the legal arguments. Fiddling with one affects the other. Yeh, right, and if my grandmother had wheels the would be a trolley. Besides this is too near and dear to M$FT (even though it is poorly supported).
Hasn't M$FT been filing patents for XML based document structures? I really doubt M$FT will give the keys to the castle or in the case of word formats the keys to the outhouse.
The dairy product council "Got Milk?" campaign ran into some problems with
translation. The literal translation in Spanish "Teien Leche"
is a colloquialism for "Are you breast feeding?"News
Story
That board with a nail in it may have defeated us today, but the humans won't stop there. They'll build bigger boards with bigger nails and soon they'll build a board with a nail in it so big it will destroy them all!! Ha ha ha ha.....
There was a study to determine if ravens can count and apparently ravens can count to seven. While ravens are watching, a single researcher walks in to a hut stocked with food. Then after a short while he walks out and leaves the door open. After the researcher had left then a raven would fly in get some food and fly out. The experiment would then be repeated with the addition of one person through each iteration. The first person in the team opens the door and walks in; then a short while later each person in the group walks in one by one with a short time gap in between entries. Then they walk out one by one with a similar gap in time. The ravens successfully waited for the last one to come out until the total reached seven. Any number of researchers beyond could walk in to the hut but when the seventh one walked out a raven would try to fly in to the hut only to turn around and fly out after encountering people inside. Then on each successive exit (after the seventh one) the raven would try to enter the hut.
It's like a car salesman saying "I know this model has a bad safety rating but we are very concerned about safety. So go ahead and use it and in some unspecified amount of time we'll make the seat belts work."
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha! Recycle and have warm beer, don't recycle and get cold beer!
You are truly a condescending bastard.
The equality operator should be used to invoke built in user defined equality functions as in C++. The syntax used by Java is cumbersome and un-intuitive. That was and is my original point. Since the vast majority of comparison are intended to be logical comparisons then the equality operator should have been used for this purpose.
I agree with you on most points. Unless you are saying that Lisp is a reasonable language. My point is this, in the context of Java 3 == 3. It doesn't care that both literals in different memory locations. So why should the equality operator work differently for classes ? Ex. classTim jim(3), Jim(3); Jim == jim should return true.
What the fuck are you talking about? 3 and 3.00 are not identical at the binary level: from a logical stand point they are the same. The equality operator works as expected in this case. So why should the equality operator behave differently for other types ? If I'm comparing objects I am most likely interested in a logical comparison and not in a comparison of their respective addresses.
That's a stupid example. If your language has no way to distinguish between hex and decimal litterals then it probably has bigger problems.
3 == 0x03 == 03 == 3.00
62 == 0x3e == 076 == 62.00
No distribution required. Just having something that by passes the encryption is enough. My understanding of the law is this, If you break an encryption scheme which is used to protect copyrighted material then you've broken the DMCA.
Oh, but it is illegal to modify your own hardware. If you develop/modify/alter/create (etc..) a piece of hardware which breaks the CSS then you are in violation of the DMCA. That's where we're at.
1 word... never.
More words... Where there is money to be had there is conflict. The MPAA represents lots of money. Even if the courts come down hard on the MPAA it'll figure something else out.
I didn't get to be head of the department because I'm a moron.
I got to be head of the department because I..I..I.I.I'm not moron.
It is in congruous that in the spirit of hiding memory allocation, management and pointer manipulation for objects that equality operator doesn't perform its operation on de-referenced objects. This operation is the most common and should have the advantage of the simpler operator syntax.
Ok dip shit, I know the difference between an integer and IEEE floating point numbers. Do not presume that you need to lecture me on these points: I've been programming computers since 1972 and doing it as my sole source of income since 1986. I know many computer languages including a few assemblers. Now on to my point.
Logically 3 does equal 3.00. In any reasonable language if one compares the two with a simple equality operator it will return true. The built in operators should promote scalar types until operands are of a compatible type. So in C for instance the equality operator would promote 3 == 3.00 to 3.00 = 3.00. This is a convince. K & R could have said "Wait, let's not do this promotion thing but instead make everyone use a function call syntax to do the exact same thing!". This was extended in C++ to allow non-scalar comparisons so now one can write equality operators to do what ever one wants for a given pair of objects. This allows the developer to use the more intuitive, simpler and more readable operator syntax. The equality operator is nothing more than a function. Maybe you should learn that, Dweeb.
It's cumbersome and unnecessary, and yes 3.00 does equal 3. Just as the implementer of the equals function decides what equality between types means the implementer of an operator also decides what equality means between types.
Additionally, I don't need dweebs telling me what profession to be in.
Not just that, I mean come on it's a cross platform Visual Basic. Granted Java is more flexible than VB but if you need to stray from the confines of the library you are screwed. Java is an excellent language for what it is. Don't try to make it something it's not.
But this part I don't get. If Java is supposed to hide pointers from the developer then why does object equality compare pointers and not objects ? This makes no sense. The equality operator should work like the compare function and pointer comparison should work through a function.
So go the legal arguments. Fiddling with one affects the other. Yeh, right, and if my grandmother had wheels the would be a trolley. Besides this is too near and dear to M$FT (even though it is poorly supported).
Hasn't M$FT been filing patents for XML based document structures? I really doubt M$FT will give the keys to the castle or in the case of word formats the keys to the outhouse.
The spanish translation should be "Tiene leche?"
The dairy product council "Got Milk?" campaign ran into some problems with translation. The literal translation in Spanish "Teien Leche" is a colloquialism for "Are you breast feeding?" News Story
That board with a nail in it may have defeated us today, but the humans won't stop there. They'll build bigger boards with bigger nails and soon they'll build a board with a nail in it so big it will destroy them all!! Ha ha ha ha.....
... there are Semitic people who are not Jewish.
He should have been on the don't drive list many, many years ago.
There was a study to determine if ravens can count and apparently ravens can count to seven. While ravens are watching, a single researcher walks in to a hut stocked with food. Then after a short while he walks out and leaves the door open. After the researcher had left then a raven would fly in get some food and fly out. The experiment would then be repeated with the addition of one person through each iteration. The first person in the team opens the door and walks in; then a short while later each person in the group walks in one by one with a short time gap in between entries. Then they walk out one by one with a similar gap in time. The ravens successfully waited for the last one to come out until the total reached seven. Any number of researchers beyond could walk in to the hut but when the seventh one walked out a raven would try to fly in to the hut only to turn around and fly out after encountering people inside. Then on each successive exit (after the seventh one) the raven would try to enter the hut.
Ouch!
And I though having the back of the hand slapped with a ruler was painful enough! This a very tough zero tolerance policy.
Your dad needed to find new friends. The ones he had were obviously deffective.
Sadly I can imagine that they are.
It's like a car salesman saying "I know this model has a bad safety rating but we are very concerned about safety. So go ahead and use it and in some unspecified amount of time we'll make the seat belts work."
Floppy direves arn't done yet! I just got an HP with a floppy drive installed.
but not to anyone I know. If it's the difference between $1k/G and $150/G then the cost savings in compatibility are not worth even mentioning.