Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 48764
interpreted = N
texte = Brian,That is not correct.bob is a string consisting of the letters 'bob' it DOES contain 'b' (which is what the ^ means to WebDNA) it does not contain '' which is what [showif bob^] means as well as [if bob^]. Both these statements are FALSE.Someone correct me if I'm wrong please :)- Charles On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Brian Fries wrote:> Your description is inconclusive. If I was checking for b, then, to > paraphrase you: > > What your comparison is saying IF bob contains b then true. bob > contains bob therefore is false in both cases. > > This is not a test for equality, and bob contains NOTHING an infinite > number of times. > > Again, I'm not saying that one result is better than the other - > logically it's an inconclusive test. What I am saying is that, since > it's inconclusive, it SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED WITHOUT GOOD REASON > AND WITHOUT NOTIFYING DEVELOPERS THAT THEIR CODE MIGHT BREAK. > > SMSI: Comments? Scott? Please? > > - brian > > On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:47 AM, Charles Kline wrote: > >> What your comparison is saying IF bob contains NOTHING then true. bob >> contains bob therefore is false in both cases. >> >> On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:56 AM, Brian Fries wrote: >> >>> On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 10:38 PM, Charles Kline wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:32 AM, Brian Fries wrote: >>>> >>>>> [showif bob^] >>>>> >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> [if bob^] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my tests, these evaluate to true under 4.5.0 and earlier, and >>>>> to false under 4.5.1. Clearly URL is not the issue here. >>>>> >>>> [showif bob^] should evaluate to 'false' so it seems the bug was in >>>> 4.5.0 >>> >>> And WHY should [showif bob^] evaluate false? I don't see anything in >>> the empty string that isn't also in bob, therefore I - and every >>> version of WebDNA prior to 4.5.1 - would expect it to evaluate to > >>> true. >>> >>>> >>>> [if bob^] should evaluate to 'false' as well. >>>> >>> >>> Again, why is false any better than true for this? If WebDNA >>> were being written from scratch, then it would be the right time to >>> make a choice on this. But, since it's worked the same way since I >>> began using the product in 1997, I think its a little late to make >>> this change. >>> >>> I'm not really here to debate which way it SHOULD resolve the >>> comparison, I'm only here to point out that it broke my code - which >>> was fully tested and had been working fine for years. >>> >>>> It was always my understanding that when using [if] to compare >>>> strings, they needed to be in quotes. Was in the docs. as that from >>>> the beginning. >>>> >>> >>> Relevance? What quotes do you see missing from my example? >>> >>> - brian > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Brian,That is not correct.bob is a string consisting of the letters 'bob' it DOES contain 'b' (which is what the ^ means to WebDNA) it does not contain '' which is what [showif bob^] means as well as [if bob^]. Both these statements are FALSE.Someone correct me if I'm wrong please :)- Charles On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Brian Fries wrote:> Your description is inconclusive. If I was checking for b, then, to > paraphrase you: > > What your comparison is saying IF bob contains b then true. bob > contains bob therefore is false in both cases. > > This is not a test for equality, and bob contains NOTHING an infinite > number of times. > > Again, I'm not saying that one result is better than the other - > logically it's an inconclusive test. What I am saying is that, since > it's inconclusive, it SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED WITHOUT GOOD REASON > AND WITHOUT NOTIFYING DEVELOPERS THAT THEIR CODE MIGHT BREAK. > > SMSI: Comments? Scott? Please? > > - brian > > On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:47 AM, Charles Kline wrote: > >> What your comparison is saying IF bob contains NOTHING then true. bob >> contains bob therefore is false in both cases. >> >> On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:56 AM, Brian Fries wrote: >> >>> On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 10:38 PM, Charles Kline wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:32 AM, Brian Fries wrote: >>>> >>>>> [showif bob^] >>>>> >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> [if bob^] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my tests, these evaluate to true under 4.5.0 and earlier, and >>>>> to false under 4.5.1. Clearly URL is not the issue here. >>>>> >>>> [showif bob^] should evaluate to 'false' so it seems the bug was in >>>> 4.5.0 >>> >>> And WHY should [showif bob^] evaluate false? I don't see anything in >>> the empty string that isn't also in bob, therefore I - and every >>> version of WebDNA prior to 4.5.1 - would expect it to evaluate to > >>> true. >>> >>>> >>>> [if bob^] should evaluate to 'false' as well. >>>> >>> >>> Again, why is false any better than true for this? If WebDNA >>> were being written from scratch, then it would be the right time to >>> make a choice on this. But, since it's worked the same way since I >>> began using the product in 1997, I think its a little late to make >>> this change. >>> >>> I'm not really here to debate which way it SHOULD resolve the >>> comparison, I'm only here to point out that it broke my code - which >>> was fully tested and had been working fine for years. >>> >>>> It was always my understanding that when using [if] to compare >>>> strings, they needed to be in quotes. Was in the docs. as that from >>>> the beginning. >>>> >>> >>> Relevance? What quotes do you see missing from my example? >>> >>> - brian > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Charles Kline
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
no global [username] or [password] displayed ... (1997)
The word TYPE in search contexts and fields (1998)
format_to_days on NT (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - nested [xxx] contexts (1997)
Upload via Browser (1999)
2.0 Info (1997)
multiple databases (1997)
RE: ANother SHOWIF problem (1997)
THANKS!!! ShipCosts.db and debugging (1997)
WebCat editing, SiteGuard WAS:SiteAssociative lookup style? (1997)
RE: WebDNA-Talk searchable? (1997)
no [include]s with encryption? (1998)
method of payment (1997)
Numbers from Sentence (2003)
WebDNA - fun to compare (2005)
Robert Minor duplicate mail (1997)
Help! WebCat2 bug (Ben's input) (1997)
Ampersand Character (&) (1997)
Max Record length (1997)
format and math on the fly (1998)