"is null" vs "== null"

[Søren J. Løvborg]

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> When is comparing against == with opEquals *not* an error?  I mean, when 
> should that ever pass if opEquals is available to be called?
> I can see a class that says, "I'm null currently" but that seems about as 
> logical as a class that overloads operators to do bizarre things.

Assuming you meant "comparing against _null_ with opEquals", I agree.

This is why I believe null should be defined as being equal to null (and 
only null),
both when comparing references and when comparing values.

Søren J. Løvborg
web at kwi.dk