Re: String concatenation design
- From: "Barry" <barryg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:17:43 -0600
<andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143553103.017921.221240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
those
Barry wrote:
<andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143540676.814646.118800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
used in
Anton Treuenfels wrote:
I have a numeric expression parser that allows literal strings to be
logical expressions (such as comparisons) because the results of
engagingare
becausenumeric. I gave the relevant string operators a very high precedence
that seemed the easiest way to prevent numeric operators from
string operands.
So the expression
"ABC" < "DEF" + 1
is parsed as
("ABC" < "DEF") + 1
and yields the value 2.
why does boolean + numeric -> numeric.
boolean + numeric could go to boolean or be disallowed IMO.
Or is the current semantic particularly useful and if so where?
regards
Andy Little
Who said anything about booleans?
What else should a less-than comparison return?
cheers
Andy Little
In C it returns an int, in perl it is just a scalar.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: String concatenation design
- From: Barry
- Re: String concatenation design
- References:
- String concatenation design
- From: Anton Treuenfels
- Re: String concatenation design
- From: andy
- Re: String concatenation design
- From: Barry
- Re: String concatenation design
- From: andy
- String concatenation design
- Prev by Date: Re: Subtract smaller or larger number from x?
- Next by Date: Re: String concatenation design
- Previous by thread: Re: String concatenation design
- Next by thread: Re: String concatenation design
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|