On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +0000, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>
>They are not going to change after 30 years because that would break too many
>things.
>
>That may not be logical, but that's how it works.
>
It's the rules. We gotta deal with it. I recently had the
complementary problem coding an awk script while my mind was
operating in Rexx mode. I had "0" in an environment variable
and "0" behaves differently from 0 in some contexts.
In this case, I dealt with it by changing "if ( SWITCH )" to
"if ( SWITCH + 0 )" to force a numeric test.
Cowlishaw tried to implement the principle of least astonishment
by designing so that if two things look the same, they should
behave the same. Alas, a collateral consequence is that if two
things look different, they may regardless behave the same.
Do I understand correctly that in Java:
2 + "2" is 4, but
"2" + 2 is "22"? The "+" operator is not commutative.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
