Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...> writes:
> I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. The QNames are equal if ns() and
> name() both match. The prefix is irrelevant. This is what I suggested in
> my definition of the equality operator above.
>
> if (qn1 == qn2) ...
>
> just does the right thing. If some application really wants to compare the
> prefixed name, it can always write:
>
> if (qn1.prefixedName () == qn2.prefixedName ()) ...
>
> I'm obviously missing something, since you and other knowledgable people
> don't regard this as self evidently obvious -- can you explain the problem
> to me, please?
In principle (the principle of least surprise), it's very bad
behaviour for two objects to be == in C++ or equals() in Java if any
of their publicly-accessible fields differ. Think of sets, for
example.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@m...
http://www.megginson.com/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
