From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <3360BFA8.5A4A@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237336972
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <E93v4u.DG1@world.std.com>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <E95y9L.AK1@world.std.com>
 <33671d9c.5046069@news.airmail.net>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> >Historical note: I believe the Red language tried to make sure
> >overloadings of the comparison ops "made sense" in this way -- you could
> >overload two of them, and the other four would automatically change.
> 
> What a narrow view to take!

Really ? Then show me an example where you think it's reasonable to have 
   a < b not equivalent to b > a
or
   a <= b not equivalent to a < b or a = b