The current spec defines string comparison using one of the operators <, <=, >, or >= in terms of when one string is less than another. That's fine for <, but:
for <= it effectively assumes issue 245 is fixed (i.e. that a <= b for strings a and b if a < b or a == b)
for > and >= it leaves quite a lot to the reader's imagination.
Once we've settled on issue 245, the above should be addressed.
~We should also adopt a similar approach for ordered comparisons (<, >) of arrays if issue 244 is adopted.~ (It wasn't.)
(I labelled this issue as editorial because I don't believe it will change the intended semantics in either case.)
The current spec defines string comparison using one of the operators
<
,<=
,>
, or>=
in terms of when one string is less than another. That's fine for<
, but:<=
it effectively assumes issue 245 is fixed (i.e. thata <= b
for stringsa
andb
ifa < b
ora == b
)>
and>=
it leaves quite a lot to the reader's imagination.Once we've settled on issue 245, the above should be addressed.
~We should also adopt a similar approach for ordered comparisons (<, >) of arrays if issue 244 is adopted.~ (It wasn't.)
(I labelled this issue as
editorial
because I don't believe it will change the intended semantics in either case.)