Re: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2015 at 02:38 UTC
You know you can use `0xFFFFFFFF`, right?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Feb 09, 2015 at 03:32 UTC
... or even 0xFFFF_FFFF or 4_294_967_295 for that matter. Give a man a fish: `<%-(-(-(-<`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by Tux (Canon) on Feb 09, 2015 at 08:38 UTC
Why not simply use `-1`? `$ perl -MDP -we'DHexDump pack ("N", -1)' 0000 ff ff ff ff .... $ perl -MDP -we'DHexDump pack ("Q", -1)' 0000 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ........` [download] Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2015 at 18:09 UTC
Re^6: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2015 at 20:05 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^4: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by isync (Hermit) on Feb 09, 2015 at 18:23 UTC
@AnomalousMonk: well, didn't know that. but never liked the underscore notation for numbers, anyway... :)	[reply]
Re^3: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by isync (Hermit) on Feb 09, 2015 at 18:22 UTC
@ ikegami: yes, knew that.	[reply]
Re^4: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 10, 2015 at 03:20 UTC
It was a rhetorical question. The implication is that you should have used `0xFFFF_FFFF`. If you had, you wouldn't have made the error you did.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Why is pack("N",42949672965) giving me 00 00 00 05 by isync (Hermit) on Feb 12, 2015 at 00:43 UTC