> Yeah. E.g. for ==, the two options would be: > > a) must_eq (a, b) -> a == b > must_ne (a, b) -> a != b > > which has the weird property that (a == b) != (!(a != b)) > > b) must_eq (a, b) -> a == b > may_ne (a, b) -> a != b > > which has the weird property that a can be equal to b when a != b
Yes, a) was the one I had in mind, i.e. the traditional operators are the must variants and you use an outer ! in order to express the may. Of course this would require a bit of discipline but, on the other hand, if most of the cases fall in the must category, that could be less ugly. > Sorry about that. It's the best I could come up with without losing > the may/must distinction. Which variant is known_zero though? Must or may? -- Eric Botcazou
