cars-assemble: Update introduction.md

[DevPika]

<> inequality operator doesn't seem to exist in Clojure, replaced it with not=

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism. We are currently in a phase of our journey where we have paused community contributions to allow us to take a breather and redesign our community model. You can learn more in this blog post. As such, all issues and PRs in this repository are being automatically closed.

That doesn't mean we're not interested in your ideas, or that if you're stuck on something we don't want to help. The best place to discuss things is with our community on the Exercism Community Forum. You can use this link to copy this into a new topic there.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[tasxatzial]

The description says "inequality (<>)", but maybe they wanted to say "less than" and "greater than" and separate the operators with a comma.

Edit: After reading this again, it looks that it's not clear what the "standard numeric comparison" operators are. Do these include the =, > and <? Maybe re-phrase the whole sentence?

[DevPika]

I understood the use of the plural form "operators" in the sentence to be for the "standard numeric comparison operators" (which is probably >, <, <=, >=), equality = and non-equality ("inequality" here). The issue I have with the wording is that some languages like F# have <> as the not equal operator, which is not the case for Clojure, even though it might seem that way from the introduction here. Further discussion on differences in Clojure between = and == operators can be found on the Clojure equality guide page.

[DevPika]

I have tried to make the sentence clearer now, but I am unsure if the difference between == and = as discussed in the Clojure guide can go in as a note here. For example, consider this:

;; false
(= 2 2.0)

;; true, because == is type independent and specifically deals with numbers
(== 2 2.0)

[bobbicodes]

. . . "standard numeric comparison operators" . . . The issue I have with the wording is that some languages like F# have . . .

I copied that wording from the C# track but now I don't like it either. I think it would be good to avoid saying "standard" anything and enumerate them specifically.

The way you have it now seems pretty good.

[tasxatzial]

I have tried to make the sentence clearer now, but I am unsure if the difference between == and = as discussed in the Clojure guide can go in as a note here. For example, consider this:

;; false
(= 2 2.0)

;; true, because == is type independent and specifically deals with numbers
(== 2 2.0)

Good point. This example shows why sometimes == might be preferable. It needs more explanation though because it's not perfectly clear why the first example returns false and why the second one returns true. The linked Clojure guide has an extensive section talking about their differences. I'm not sure what's the best approach at this point. Maybe write a brief note and link to the guide? (I feel this might confuse people)

@bobbicodes What's your take on this?

[bobbicodes]

I think a note about == here seems totally appropriate. For comparison, I just looked at the Python introduction to the exercise teaching numbers and it leads me to think we should lean in the direction of providing more information.

[DevPika]

Thanks for the feedback! We are taking this PR closer to closure! 😁 I have added in a note at the bottom to highlight the number equality behavior.

[bobbicodes]

This is great, thank you!