I agree. Something that ought to work... well, ought to! I think I have dodged the bullet by using a personal development policy where I avoid wherever I can the use of a not equal comparison. I always use not (a = b). I forget why I developed this method, but now I see the problem you are having, who knows how many times it has saved my wazoo?
Bob On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote: > On 01/12/2012 20:09, Robert Sneidar wrote: >> Can't you use not (aArray1 = aArray2)? >> >> Bob >> > Yes, you can *if* you know you need to do that :-) > > I refuse to say how many hours I spent debugging to get to the point where I > knew this was the problem. You suspect the likely things first (i.e. that I > had made an error somewhere) and the unlikely things last (i.e. that a > straightforward conditional test that is accepted and should work would fail). > > And there is no reason why it needs to fail, and intuitively it ought to work > - so it's a reasonable request to make. I'll enter it into QCC some day soon > .... > > Thanks > -- Alex. > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
