Re^3: Range check with unordered limits

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).

Comment on Re^3: Range check with unordered limits

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]