*From*: Leo Razoumov <slonik.az@xxxxxxxxx>*To*: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:24:38 -0400

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Daurnimator <quae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > == isn't guaranteed to be transitive > You can easily end up with the same behaviour when writing an __eq metamethod > I understand that __eq can be abused to achieve weird behavior of == operator. My question is whether is makes sense to do so. In formal logic transitivity is part of the definition of equality relation. Breaking it could have really bad consequences. --Leo--

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Vadim Peretokin

**References**:**FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Mike Pall

**Re: FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Francesco Abbate

**Re: FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Mike Pall

**Re: FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Leo Razoumov

**Re: FFI enums are now always boxed***From:*Daurnimator

- » FFI enums are now always boxed- Mike Pall
- » RE: FFI enums are now always boxed- William Adams
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Daurnimator
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Mike Pall
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Daurnimator
- » RE: FFI enums are now always boxed- Janis Britals
- » RE: FFI enums are now always boxed- William Adams
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Justin Cormack
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Francesco Abbate
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Mike Pall
- » RE: FFI enums are now always boxed- William Adams
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Leo Razoumov
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Daurnimator
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed - Leo Razoumov
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Vadim Peretokin
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Dimiter 'malkia' Stanev
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Daurnimator
- » Re: FFI enums are now always boxed- Mike Pall