browse keys (@bk)

[John Esak]

> I have to agree with the -concept- of absolute equality, at the basis of
> the argument.  There's a difference between "like" and "equals",
> basically.
> I think the 'eq' operator is simply misnamed.  I'm not saying it shouldn't
> have been included, I'm saying they could have done things like:
>
> eq gt lt co
> ceq cgt clt cco

By this logic, Mark, you would also disagree with Mr. Bourne (and a hug host
of other language designers)... Unfortunately, or fortunately, the use of
any operator (like eq for example...) is just a matter of explanation and
convention... in other words, *this* is how it works here... and this is how
it works somewhere else... For Jay, or anyone, to say filePro is doing it
*wrong* is (I'm sorry to say) is just ridiculous... It is just another
attempt to start and argument where there is no reason for one. To use your
comment above, the way "eq" works in the shell would be *wrong* also, but I
don't see you or Jay writing to AT&T, Berkeley or Linus...

$  num1=2
$  num2=3
$ [ num2 -eq num1 ] && echo "All eq's must work the way Jay says..."

Equality is a funny thing, isn't it?  All you have to do is learn and
understand the rules in which it is being used. To complain that there is
some standard somewhere which isn't being followed is pretty pointless to
me. If I want eq to mean to string values compare to the same thing because
they both are full of something... well, it's my call, I wrote the rules...
Same with filePro, whose users have known the rules since they started using
it over 20 years ago. It's simply a convention and a method of working that
was adopted as the best design at the time. My issue with Jay's statements
that it is wrong... well, I can't say it any plainer, can I. He just wants
an argument where really is nothing to argue about. It is not the eq that is
"wrong", it is his statements about it.

John