Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
[Thread Prev] | [Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
- From: Chris Waldon <christopher.waldon.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: myrddin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:37:31 -0400
- To: myrddin-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The last thing is that the names 'comparable' and 'cmp' makes me think of ordering rather than simple equality comparison. Maybe calling it 'equatable' and 'eq' would be good? Or maybe this is bikeshedding and it doesn't matter. -- Ori Bernstein
Personally, I think `equatable` and `eq` make a lot more sense in this context. Seems like a simple tweak to make if there aren't objections.
-Chris
Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits | Ori Bernstein <ori@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
RFC: comparable and hashable traits | Lucas Gabriel Vuotto <lvuotto92@xxxxxxxxx> |
Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits | Ori Bernstein <ori@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
- Prev by Date: Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
- Next by Date: Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
- Previous by thread: Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
- Next by thread: Re: RFC: comparable and hashable traits
- Index(es):