Nando Dessena wrote:

>As I see it, the semantics for the == operator should be as follows:
>
>(value == value) evaluates to true if the values are equivalent (i.e.
>the comparison for equality is true); it evaluates to false in all
>other cases; it never evaluates to unknown/null.
>
>(value == null) evaluates to false.
>
>(null == value) evaluates to false.
>
>(null == null) evaluates to true.
>
>

Looks very good to me...
Just one thing though: shouldn't we also provide a corresponding
negative operator?
We can't use !=
Should we use "!==" or simply "not =="?

Jonathan Neve.