[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chromatic) writes:
Is 10 a string? Is it a number? Is 10base-T a string? Is it a
number? Is an object with overloaded stringification and numification a
number? Is it a string?
I don't know a good heuristic for solving these problems. If you have
one, it's worth
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 17:13, chromatic wrote:
As Luke suggests, there's also programmer clarity to consider. If
determining how to compare depends on how you've used the variables to
compare, is it harder to understand the code?
To be specific, what does:
my $a = foo();
my
Would it be a good idea to make ==, and other numeric comparators polymorphic
so they can be used also for string comparisons? Or the will is to keep eq,
gt and the others. (not very nice emho).
Regards.
--
Pedro Larroy Tovar | Linux Network consultant | piotr%member.fsf.org
Software
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 13:35, Pedro Larroy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to make ==, and other numeric comparators polymorphic
so they can be used also for string comparisons?
How does the compiler know which is which?
Is 10 a string? Is it a number? Is 10base-T a string? Is it a
number?
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:42:26PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 13:35, Pedro Larroy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to make ==, and other numeric comparators polymorphic
so they can be used also for string comparisons?
How does the compiler know which is which?
Is 10
Pedro Larroy writes:
Would it be a good idea to make ==, and other numeric comparators
polymorphic so they can be used also for string comparisons? Or the
will is to keep eq, gt and the others. (not very nice emho).
It was decided long ago that the distinction between == and eq is going
to
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 13:51, Pedro Larroy wrote:
I thought perl internally would know. At least in perl5 it has to know
somehow, since you can $var++ when is numeric and also when it's a
string, and behaves different in each case.
True. Perl 5 scalars do keep track of the context in which
Luke Palmer wrote:
Admittedly, if you use == for everything, you can force string or
numeric comparison this way:
if +$a == +$b {...} # numeric
if ~$a == ~$b {...} # string
Hmm.
In my head, I would expect == to have implicit numification on the
operands (unless user-overloaded to
Rod Adams writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Admittedly, if you use == for everything, you can force string or
numeric comparison this way:
if +$a == +$b {...} # numeric
if ~$a == ~$b {...} # string
Hmm.
In my head, I would expect == to have implicit numification on the
Luke Palmer wrote:
Oh, sorry, wasn't clear. That's *if* eq was eliminated and == became a
polymorphic operator.
You're correct in terms of the current (and hopefully continuing) state
of things.
Went back and re-read your first post, and that is indeed what you were
saying, I just read it too
Luke Palmer skribis 2004-05-17 14:54 (-0600):
Admittedly, if you use == for everything, you can force string or
numeric comparison this way:
if +$a == +$b {...} # numeric
if ~$a == ~$b {...} # string
And $a :=: $b could be written as \$a == \$b. Oh, hm.
It does sound kind of
11 matches
Mail list logo
