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:
Counting, Percentages and Chart Display (2002)
Search/sort in URL Was: GuestBook example (1997)
too many nested tags ... (1997)
Credit card processing - UK (1997)
[OT] Double chars in form (ie 5.2 mac OSX) (2004)
Header values are not accepted (1998)
form data submission gets truncated (1997)
add to cart within a page? (1997)
SSL and WebCatalog (1997)
Question on the sandbox (2003)
using showpage and showcart commands (1996)
Queertrons? (1997)
Snake Bites (1997)
I'm tired of all this! (2000)
iTools and 3.0.8 (2000)
Answer: WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997)
Deleting Multiple Database Records based on Checkbox (1998)
Max Record length (1997)
[WebDNA] Merry Christmas (2013)
Add a field to the error log? (1997)