Definition of infix:<eqv> is not correct

[JJ]

The problem

The definition of eqv in the Operators page is shown as

sub infix:<eqv>(Any, Any)

But that's only one of the possible definitions, there are dozens of them. Granted it's probably not a good idea to show each and every one of them, although there's a separate page, curiously enough, for the one that uses Matchas argument here.

Suggestions

Most limited change would simply be change Any to Mu, which makes much more sense. An extensive change would involve adding code to every class that can use it, or at least those that do so in a special way (for instance, eqv for allomorphs is special cased to be False if they are different)

[cfa]

I agree that we don't want to list all of the candidates on the operators page—there're far too many.

There's a related issue here, especially with the Any signature: eqv on an arbitrary class will test for identity or for equivalent type objects and raku strings. So these two instances are equal,

class A { has $.x; method raku { "bad idea" } }

A.new(x => 123) eqv A.new(x => 456);

In this case, the documentation is misleading as it suggests that all implementations of infix:<eqv> are expected to test whether parameters are of "the same type and (recursively) contain equivalent values".

[2colours]

Most limited change would simply be change Any to Mu, which makes much more sense.

There is no Mu candidate so I really don't think this is a good idea; nothing really pushes us to all of a sudden document a fake candidate of one random operator.

I agree that we don't want to list all of the candidates on the operators page—there're far too many.

Hm, okay... would it be possible to not list them for the operators page but list them as part of the corresponding types?

In this case, the documentation is misleading as it suggests that all implementations of infix: are expected to test whether parameters are of "the same type and (recursively) contain equivalent values".

Yes, well... it makes sense - a different sense. "You are expected to provide the test (...)" Perhaps it should be rephrased to something that describes the general idea ("this is the operator that is meant to be overloaded when appropriate", as opposed to other equality checks) and also the default behavior,