Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree

[Michael Heerdegen]

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <address@hidden> writes:

> If I had to pick one or the other, I would go with xor purely because it
> is the one that has been copied several times.  But I am also perfectly
> happy with bool-equal, especially if it is the historically/classically
> preferred function.

I also prefer xor.  bool-equal doesn't harmonize with the other
prominent equivalence predicates "eq" and "equal" because it sounds
similar to "equal" but is something totally different (actually "equal"
already is a weird name, but it's what we have).  OTOH, if you argue
that "equal" is a superset of "eq", and "bool-equal" a superset of
"equal" it would make some sense.

But "bool-equal" still makes me think about testing equality of some
data, while this is more about testing conditions, because the arguments
will most likely already be the result of some test, instead of some
data that has been constructed and we are inspecting.

Michael.