Re: Unexpected comparison behavior change in 4.5.1
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 48762
interpreted = N
texte = 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?- brianOn 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/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
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?- brianOn 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/
Brian Fries
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:
Nav. 4 probs with cart (1997)
protect tag on NT IIS (1997)
Strange Crash (1998)
Multiple prices (1997)
FAX orders (1996)
Fileinfo... (2000)
Sitebuilder / StoreBuilder - *related.db* (2008)
redirect with frames (1997)
RE: Web*SSL and WebCatalog (1997)
OT: Verbose messages - Web*4.2 (2000)
[WebDNA] webdna's svn repositories (2009)
Search in 2 or more catalogs (1997)
WebCat2 - [format thousands] (1997)
Multiple fields on 1 input (1997)
BR (1997)
Search 1 Field Twice? (2004)
Freeze (2003)
calculating tax rates, mail order solutions and version 2 (1997)
Thanks and Big News!!! (1997)
[WebDNA] A new popuated field to a DB with 700.000 records (2009)