Re^2: Range check with unordered limits

in reply to Re: Range check with unordered limits
in thread Range check with unordered limits

> I agree with ... LanX that ... is the most canonical form

Did I say this?

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Range check with unordered limits

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Range check with unordered limits by hexcoder (Curate) on Jul 13, 2022 at 09:32 UTC
IMHO for a multiplying approach that's the best check, even for the <=> version. So not verbally, but you preferred this version, I understood (as I do now).	[reply]
Re^4: Range check with unordered limits by LanX (Saint) on Jul 13, 2022 at 12:09 UTC
I meant that one should check against 0 instead of 1, yes. my preferred version is the one where I don't need to write a complicated test checking the truth table, to be sure it works. see Re^3: Range check with unordered limits (updated) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]

In Section Cool Uses for Perl