Yes, this is mentioned in Mantis 4709. Shalom > By the way, == is not a relational operator. The relational operators > are defined in 11.4.4 and only include >, <, >= and <=. So this text > about type checking the relational operators doesn't actually apply to > ==. > > The author of this text probably intended it to apply to ==. There are > other places in the LRM that refer to relational operators and then > explicitly mention ==, so this seems to be a common misuse of the term. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Mar 26 00:01:19 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 26 2014 - 00:01:25 PDT