[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:35:17 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:05:22AM -0700, Dustin Sallings wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 23:13 US/Pacific, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >> 0.0: false
> >
> >This evaluates to the number 0, and is therefore false.
> >
> >> "0": false
> >
> >This evaluates to the number 0, and is therefore false.
> >
> >> "0.0": true (huh?)
> >
> >This evaluates to the string "0.0", which is not the number 0 or the
> >string "", and is therefore true.
> >
> >This is really trivial stuff. It's in chapter 1 of the camel. You
> >really should have known it, especially that last one (which is a
> >FAQ).
>
> TMTOF. It's an inconsistency.
> Since perl has no number types,
Totally wrong. Fundamentally so, even. Perl has three primitive
numeric types (two integer, one floating) plus a bunch of interesting
things done using magic, several of which are distributed in the core.
> it's
> unclear when stuff is considered what.
No, it simply isn't. Even a beginner should understand the difference
between numbers and strings in perl, and when they occur; it's more
from the first couple of chapters of the camel.
> >>>And nor was it intended to. The reason for its existance is pretty
> >>>obvious to me, since I've spent more than 30 seconds (nearly five
> >>>minutes, I'd estimate) thinking about how to go about making all the
> >>>primitives throw exceptions on error.
> >>
> >> This is the part I don't get. Why would it not be intended to do
> >> what it's documented to do?
> >
> >Again, it is not documented as doing this.
>
> That's clearly a perspective thing. ``replace functions with
> equivalents which succeed or die.''
Only if you're a lunatic. These two statements:
"Replace functions with equivalents which succeed or die"
"Replace functions with equivalents which die on error"
are obviously not the same thing. Especially when you've just spent a
lot of time complaining about the difference.
I've read the Fatal documentation carefully, and it most definitely
describes what it does accurately and precisely, and not what you say.
> >> This is another example about how I'm a bad perl programmer because
> >> I don't know some secret knowledge and instead go by what's in the
> >>documentation.
> >
> >No single text will convey all the things you need to know about any
> >given subject. There are several good books about perl that will get
> >you started, notably including the camel.
>
> Surely the authoritative online documentation should be considered
> trustworthy. It makes no suggestion that it is not the appropriate
> tool for the job. It seems to do quite the opposite, to me.
It makes no suggestion about appropriateness at all, and it almost
certainly shouldn't.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit,
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Robert Collins, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Dustin Sallings, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Robert Collins, 2003/10/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Tom Lord, 2003/10/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Andrew Suffield, 2003/10/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit, Tom Lord, 2003/10/20