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:
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)