Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
Quoth jand@activestate.com ("Jan Dubois"):
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Zefram wrote:
> >
> > Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >And so we go full circle, as you removed the code demonstrating that we
> > >already have that bug, only worse:
> >
> > Yes. We should fix that bug, not do it intentionally.
>
> I don't see agreement on what the bug is anymore:
>
> a) Should -0 always be TRUE, even when it has never been stringified, or
> b) Should -0 always be stringified as "0" and therefore always be FALSE?
There is a third option:
c) Add "-0" to the list of strings that are FALSE.
(And, of course, arrange for "-0" to consistently numify as -0.0, if it
doesn't already.)
This would only be a sane thing to do if we intend to make -0.0 consistently
useful. If the sign disappears (or reappears) under unpredicatble
circumstances, there's no point preserving it in the stringification
(that is, option (b)).
Ben
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next