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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <dewar.862005183@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237419154
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> <3360BFA8.5A4A@elca-matrix.ch>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mats said

<<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>>


Well equivalent is a tricky word, Mats I certainly hope you realize that
with standard Ada floating-point semantics, you are not guaranteed that
these pairs of possibilities wll generate identical boolean results!

I can also easily see someone defining > or <= to mean something completely
different from comparison on a type for which comparisons make no sense
(For example <= looks a bit like an assignment ..._