Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> I may have missed something, but what were the objections to:
>> eq ne gt lt ge le ?
> 
> Currently, the impact on existing queries is minimal as = can always be
> mapped to the exact equality for strings, or adj for words.
> But by changing all of the relations, it has a much higher impact on
> existing queries.
> 
> 
> On thinking about = vs ==, is it really a problem?  The bug which
> catches people out in programming is typically:
> 	if (a = b) { ... }   // attempting if a is b
> not:
> 	a == a + 1           // attempting increment a by 1
> 
> So to translate:
> 	identifier = "abc 123"
> when you mean:
> 	identifier == "abc 123"
> 
> But any sane server will map that = to == anyway, thereby doing what you
> meant regardless.
> 
> I can't see anyone giving the query:
> 	word == fish
> When they actually meant:
> 	word = fish
> In the same way that no one writes equality when they mean assignment.
> 
> 
> I'm going to flipflop and prefer '==' to 'eq' now, because I don't think
> that the disadvantage of == is real :)
How about just forget about == . Use rel modifiers when one need to 
distinguish between different kinds of "equals".

/ Adam

> 
> Rob
> 
>