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:

    
  1. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (John Peacock 2003)
  2. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Charles Kline 2003)
  3. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
  4. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Velma Kahn 2003)
  5. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Clint Davis 2003)
  6. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Clint Davis 2003)
  7. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Charles Kline 2003)
  8. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Velma Kahn 2003)
  9. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Charles Kline 2003)
  10. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
  11. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Charles Kline 2003)
  12. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  13. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
  14. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Charles Kline 2003)
  15. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
  16. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Alain Russell 2003)
  17. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Stuart Tremain 2003)
  18. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Rob Marquardt 2003)
  19. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
  20. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Gary Krockover 2003)
  21. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Alain Russell 2003)
  22. Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Tim Robinson 2003)
  23. Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1 (Brian Fries 2003)
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:

WebCat b13 CGI -shownext- (1997) Multiple adding (1997) [WebDNA] Is a '.webdna' suffix better? (2008) [OT] md5 or sha-1 on OSX (2007) Showing unopened cart (1997) $Append for Users outside the ADMIN group (1997) Secure Server basic question... (1997) OT: Weird table rendering w/ WebCat in Explorer (2005) Setting up shop (1997) PCS Frames (1997) WebCatalog can't find database (1997) Strange intermittent WebDNA problems (2008) problems with 2 tags (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - More limits on [include] (1997) Problems getting parameters passed into email. (1997) unitshipcost vs shipcosts (1997) return missing item (was:WebCat Sales) (1997) WebCat2.0 [format thousands .0f] no go (1997) taxrate - off by 1 cent (1997) Dealer locator (1998)