Hi, Dmitry!

> > I don't buy the C++ argument at all. First, the semantics of the
> > proposed == is much closer to the C++ == operator than the C++ =
> > (assignment) operator. Second, the proposed == operator is what
> > programmers intend to write 95% of the time anyway. When comparing
> > against a literal, there is almost no difference. The only
> time that
> > significant differences can be expected is when it is used
> as a join
> > term, and in many case, it's also probably closer to what the
> > programmer intended. If a C++ programmer can master <>
> instead of !=,
> > I think he or she can back a == operator that behaves like
> a == operator.
>
> I expect to have some fun seeing you attacked by programmers
> trying to write a negated equivalence operator. Yeah,
> especially those who can master <> instead of !=. They'll
> initially try <><> or <<>>, then !=!= or !!== or !==... When
> (or perhaps if?) they'll come to "not <a> == <b>", our
> support list will die.

Note that != is an alias to <> in all known Interbase/Firebird versions.
:-)

> Dmitry

Nickolay