Hi, Gabriele,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > condition [number! char! money! time!]
>
> Aren't CHAR!s always positive?
>
> >> positive? #"^(FF)"
> == true
>
I wondered about the inclusion of char! as an argument type as
well, and then thought to try
>> to-integer #"^@"
== 0
>> #"^@" - 1
== #"�"
>> to-integer #"^@" - 1
== 255
Aha! I thought that Ladislav is very clever to include a type that
can exercise at least two legs of the three-legged stool. Then I
read your post...
>
> Oh, and perhaps this is a bug?
>
> >> positive? #"^(00)"
> == true
>
> What do you think?
>
...and (confirming the change of notation, just for formality)...
>> zero? #"^@"
== true
>> positive? #"^@"
== true
I think you are right! This smells exceedingly buggish!
(I still think Ladislav is very clever. I'm less persuaded that
Zero? and Positive? are... ;-)
-jn-
