On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:25:09 -0500 Kenneth E Tomiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Reminds me of a problem I thought I had once, how about EXPONENTIAL form
:>affecting e0 versus e8?
It certainly would, if the mantissa was non-zero.
10E0 != 10E1
0E0 = 0E5
10E0 = 1E1
--
Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PRO
gs together..maybe I am
wrong...been around rexx a long long time...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Scott Ford
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Rexx bug?
This isn't a bug in re
frame Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Kenneth E Tomiak
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Rexx bug?
Reminds me of a problem I thought I had once, how about EXPONENTIAL form
affecting e0 versus e8?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:43:18 +0200,
Reminds me of a problem I thought I had once, how about EXPONENTIAL form
affecting e0 versus e8?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:43:18 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:29:16 -0500 "Patrick O'Keefe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>:>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:09:45 +
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:29:16 -0500 "Patrick O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:09:45 +0100, Thomas Berg
:><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>...
:>>> ... REXX sees 2 equal numbers in the first case and 2 different
:>>> strings in the second case.
:>>No. REXX sees 1 string
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:09:45 +0100, Thomas Berg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> ... REXX sees 2 equal numbers in the first case and 2 different
>> strings in the second case.
>
>No. REXX sees 1 string in each case ("00E0 00E8" and "00F0 00F8").
>Try x = 00E0 + 00E8 and y = 00F0 + 00F8
>You
Mainframe cc
Discussion List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU>
PROTECTED] För Patrick O'Keefe
Skickat: den 10 mars 2008 20:50
Till: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Ämne: Re: Rexx bug?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The simple answer is that the designed the interpreter that way.
Whenever possible numeric
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Patrick O'Keefe
> Skickat: den 10 mars 2008 20:50
> Till: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Ämne: Re: Rexx bug?
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +, Ted MacNEIL
> <
Ulrich Krueger wrote:
>Could someone please run a TRACE and post the results? I can't at the
moment. This really puzzles me.
What so puzzling? ;-D
/* REXX */
/* To MATCH or NOT MATCH String versus Number */
/* Variables are actually exponencial numbers */
/* It is 0*10^0 against 0*10^8 basically
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 03/10/2008
at 03:49 PM, Wayne Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>But to add to the confusion,
There should be no confusion if you keep in mind that everything is a
string.
>X = 2 + "2";
You're adding 2 and 2; 2 and "2" are different ways of expressing the same
value.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/10/2008
at 11:11 AM, Todd Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Running this, I get a match.
Yes, because the two strings express the same number.
>if (offset1 = offset2) then say MATCH! ;
>else say NO MATCH!
Try if (offset1 == offset2)
>What does it return on
Wayne Bell wrote:
Steve,
First of all, you forced both the second and third lines to characters by
having characters in both lines. So they would both produce '22'.
Well, I actually ran a separate test at the same time:
System.out.println("In main");
System.out.println("2 + quot
Steve,
First of all, you forced both the second and third lines to characters by
having characters in both lines. So they would both produce '22'.
But to add to the confusion, here is the simple program that I wrote:
/* REXX */
X = 2 + "2";
Y = "2" + 2;
SAY "Second 2 Quoted:"
SAY X;
SAY "
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +, 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 probl
odd
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Rexx bug?
>
>...
>
> While I've known this for year
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>The simple answer is that the designed the interpreter that way.
>Whenever possible numeric strings are interpreted as numbers first,
>unless you perform unnatural acts of coding, regardless of whether
>you quote i
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:16:26 +, 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 sc
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:12:39 -0700 Ulrich Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>Because, in REXX, everything is a string.
:>>X = 3
:>> and
:>>X = "3"
:>> leave the same value in X.
:>And in both cases, the DATATYPE of X would be NUMERIC?
Yes.
:>That shouldn't be.
It certainly SHOULD.
:>
>Only if REXX interpreted the two character strings as numerical values in
>exponent notation (0**0 and 0**8) and performed a numerical comparison,
would a 'match' - result be expected. But why? That's not logical. Todd coded
two quoted character strings, didn't he?
I had this discussion a few y
>Because, in REXX, everything is a string.
>
>X = 3
>
> and
>
>X = "3"
>
> leave the same value in X.
And in both cases, the DATATYPE of X would be NUMERIC?
That shouldn't be.
If my intent is to perform a character string comparison and the value just
so happens to look like a number, I might ge
AMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Rexx bug?
John,
I'm a little confused now ...
Todd said that his comparison returned 'match'.
If REXX executed a comparison of two equal-length character strings, then a
'match' - result would be incorrect.
Only if REXX interpreted the two character stri
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:51:47 -0700 Ulrich Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Only if REXX interpreted the two character strings as numerical values in
:>exponent notation (0**0 and 0**8) and performed a numerical comparison,
:>would a 'match' - result be expected. But why?
Because, in REXX, ev
homas Berg
_
Thomas Berg Specialist IT Utveckling Swedbank AB (Publ)
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Ulrich Krueger
> Skickat: den 10 mars 2008 18:52
> Till: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Ämne:
> Converting the offsets to hex or decimal would have also avoided the
> problem, but it was overhead I didn't want to spend.
Another option is to add some character to the string so REXX doesn't
interpret it as "zero in exponential form". For example:
offset1 = "?" “E0” ;
offset2 = "?" “
, but it was overhead I didn't want to spend.
>
>Todd
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of John P. Baker
>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:29 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
TECTED] On Behalf
Of John P. Baker
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:29
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Rexx bug?
Ulrich,
As long as his intent is a simple equality/inequality test, "=="/"<>" will
work fine, in so far as the offsets are both presented with the sa
be equal too!)
Converting the offsets to hex or decimal would have also avoided the
problem, but it was overhead I didn't want to spend.
Todd
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John P. Baker
> Sent: M
ility of differing lengths, differing
cases, or if a comparative magnitude test is required (<, <=, >=, or >).
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ulrich Krueger
Sent: 03/10/2008 1:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.
x2d("E0");
offset2 = x2d("E8");
instead?
Regards,
Ulrich Krueger
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Todd Burch
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:12
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Rexx bug?
Running
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:11:30 -0600 Todd Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Running z/OS 1.9.
:>Running this, I get a match.
:>/* rexx */
:>offset1 = E0 ;
:>offset2 = E8 ;
:>if (offset1 = offset2) then say MATCH! ;
==
:>else say NO MATCH!
--
Binyamin
I'm running zOS 1.4 and I get "MATCH"
IF I use the == comparison in the IF then I get NO MATCH
On 3/10/08, Todd Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Running z/OS 1.9.
>
>
>
> Running this, I get a match.
>
>
>
> /* rexx */
>
>
>
> offset1 = "E0" ;
>
> offset2 = "E8" ;
>
> if (offset1 = o
Use "if (offset1 == offset2) ..."
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Todd Burch
Sent: 03/10/2008 1:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Rexx bug?
Running z/OS 1.9.
Running this, I get a match.
Ah yes. Duh. Thanks Mark!
>
> Todd,
>
> You're comparing zero in exponential form to zero in exponential form.
> You're not the first to get tripped up by this, believe me. Use ==
> (exactly
> equal) instead:
>
> if (offset1 == offset2) then say “MATCH!” ;
>
> Mark L. Wheeler
No virus f
Subject
.EDU> Rexx bug?
Running z/OS 1.9.
Running this, I get a match.
/* rexx */
offset1 = “E0” ;
offset2 = “E8” ;
if (offset1 = offset2) then say “MATCH!” ;
else say “NO MATCH!”
What does it return on your system?
Thanks, Todd
No virus found in this outgoing message.
36 matches
Mail list logo
