-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implicit operator TValue allows comparison of two different ValueOf types. #14
Comments
Sorry, just realized that this is almost a complete duplicate of issue #9 |
It does look like a problem. Can you please submit a PR and I'll do a major
version bump
…On Tue, 4 May 2021, 23:54 Paul Williams, ***@***.***> wrote:
Reopened #14 <#14>.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACDJ6XKHHWYHZTAJMD3M6LTMB3JVANCNFSM44DSRF4A>
.
|
Paul-Williams
added a commit
to Paul-Williams/ValueOf
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2021
Equality test fixed due to breaking change.
Hi @mcintyre321 sorry for introducing something which had to be reverted. It seemed like a good idea at the time. |
no worries - it seemed like one to me too :D
…On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:54, Matt Frear ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @mcintyre321 <https://github.com/mcintyre321> sorry for introducing
something which had to be reverted. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACDJ6T5SCNMACDP7GHBFVDTSGJGTANCNFSM44DSRF4A>
.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Implicit operator back to TValue, added last year, allows for comparison of two different ValueOf object types.
Given :
There is no compiler issue as there is an implicit convertion and the result 'r' will be true.
This may be by design, but it seems to do away with a lot of the potential safety which this class could provide.
If the implicit convertion is removed then the above comparison will create a compile-time error and so not be allowed.
I think that would be prefered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: