=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Java's_Broken_Booleans?=
Peter Duniho wrote:
For all intents and purposes, Boolean and boolean are equivalent.
Lew wrote:
Not true. For *some* intents and purposes they are equivalent. For
the intent and purpose of ordering, they are not equivalent.
Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
For the intent of three-valued logic, they're not equivalent,
either: boolean=true|false, Boolean=TRUE|FALSE|null
Lew wrote:
Therefore they are not equivalent for all intents and purposes.
Q.E.D.
Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
yep
For the intent and purpose of a base type for a collection or other
generic class or method they are not equivalent. For the intent and
purpose of upcasting, say to 'Comparable' or 'Serializable', they are
not equivalent. For the intent and purpose of reflective operations
they are not equivalent. For the intent and purpose of extracting the
value from a variable they are not equivalent.
Come to think of it, I cannot think of one intent or purpose for which
they are equivalent. They don't even have the same value domain, as
Andreas showed! Maybe we're dealing with a Humpty-Dumpty definition
of "equivalent" as "hardly at all similar".
--
Lew