[Types-sig] Re: Type equivalence

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "MK" == Marcin Kowalczyk <qrczak@knm.org.pl> writes:

    MK> This is strange. Why not just have true and false as canonical
    MK> truth values, without magic in comparisons, and keeping old
    MK> semantics of which values are considered true?

Well if {1:2} is considered "true" and true is considered "true", then
shouldn't true == {1:2}?  Seems weird to me that it wouldn't be.

    MK> The biggest problem is that letting == < etc. return
    MK> false/true instead of 0/1 breaks compatibility a lot.

I didn't say comparison operators should return the magic true or
false values.  Then again maybe it should.  Yes, it breaks
compatibility but wouldn't it be more type safe?

-Barry