Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 12"
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
revising this, but a sweeping change without further looking | revising this, but a sweeping change without further looking | ||
at the specific cases is a very bad idea. --[[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 01:23, 25 Jun 2006 (CDT) | at the specific cases is a very bad idea. --[[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 01:23, 25 Jun 2006 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | BOF: Accept and add equivalence definitions for EN, AD, PQ, CD, possibly others | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Disposition == | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Status == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed | ||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | ||
Revision as of 03:44, 12 January 2007
Contents
Data Types Issue 12: Drop identity-equality distinction
Introduction
Remove the artificial distinction between identity and equality. We do a whole lot of goofy things (like make addresses BAGs instead of SETs because we need to support duplicate addresses with different times.
This would not be backward compatible.
Discussion
DataTypes BOF May 2005: Proposed action: Accept and add equivalence definitions for EN, AD, PQ, CD, possibly others
This is a very far-reaching thing to do. I can agree to EN and AD but it should not be done for PQ and CD. The proposal is not correctly titled, as the whole point about data types is that identity is not different from equality. Anything that looks different between two values and does not factor into the equality relation is logically irrelevant. I am O.K. with revising this, but a sweeping change without further looking at the specific cases is a very bad idea. --Gschadow 01:23, 25 Jun 2006 (CDT)
BOF: Accept and add equivalence definitions for EN, AD, PQ, CD, possibly others
Disposition
Status
Proposed
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
