Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:42:35PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2012-08-17T09:24:10]
> > For me, one of the few advantages I saw in using ~~ is not having to
> > wonder when to use == vs eq vs =~. The above table suggests that
> >
> > "0.0" ~~ 0
> >
> > is false, while it's currently true. That bothers me. IMO, a "smart match"
> > should be able to say, "hmmm, both my operands look like numbers, you know
> > what, I'll use '==' to compare them!"
> >
> > Would this be workable:
> >
> > $a $b Meaning
> > ======= ======= ======================
> > [...]
> > Any Looks like number $a == $b (without a "isn't numeric" warning)
> > Any Simple $a eq $b
> > Any Any fatal
> > [...]
>
> This is similar to something Damian suggested, which was == if both $a *and* $b
> look_like_number. I think that's less jarring to me, as I think I'd expect
> ("foo" ~~ "0e0") to fail.
>
> What do you think?
Yeah, I initially wanted to propose (LLN == looks like a number):
LLN LLN $a == $b
!LLN LLN false
LLN !LLN false
and then thought "ah, but the last two are redundant, they will fall back
to 'eq', and that will return false anyway". And then I returned the remaining
case into 'Any LLN', forgetting about the oddity that when something doesn't
look a like a number, we treat it as 0.
So, yeah, Damian is right, '==' should be used iff both sides look like
numbers. That was my intention as well, but there were some bad transmissions
errors between my brain and the email that I send.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next