[Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)

[Edward Welbourne]

Marc Mutz (14 June 2023 10:52) wrote:
> == Naming E ==
>
> So far, we've been using equal(). equals() doesn't work for technical
> reasons, but while it'd work as a member function lhs.equals(rhs),
> it's also kinda wrong if the function is taking two arguments
> (equals(lhs, rhs), but there are _two_ objects). So equal() as the
> plural form or equals() makes sense.

No, it really doesn't (but it's illuminating to finally see why you
thought it did).

Sure, if we have two objects whose masses together equal that of a
third, you get "equal" as the plural of "equals" but it's *still
transitive* and its "those two equal this one".  You can stretch to
"these two equal one another" but it's severely contrived to do so; you
would say "these two are equal".  Besides, if you don't like areEqual(),
you're really not going to welcome equalOneAnother().

I've no objection to eq() and cmp(), though,

	Eddy.