Re^2: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2)

A bit more digestible explanation (imo):

$ perl -e 'printf "$_ => %b\n", ord($_) for qw( A B C @ )'
A => 1000001
B => 1000010
C => 1000011
@ => 1000000
[download]

so, "A" & "B" (0b1000001 & 0b1000010) yields "@" (0b1000000), "A" & "C" (0b1000001 & 0b1000011) yields "A" (0b1000001), "B" & "C" yields "B".

So, for example:

"ABC" & "ABA" => "ABA"
"ABB" & "ABA" => "AB@"

"ABC" & "AB"  => "AB"
# perlop: "the & op acts as though the longer operand
# were truncated to the length of the shorter"
# so the strings don't have to be equal length
# for that to work
[download]

Comment on Re^2: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2) by GrandFather (Saint) on Dec 13, 2015 at 22:53 UTC
Yes, I was being thick. The penny dropped 30s after seeing BUK's reply. Premature optimization is the root of all job security	[reply]
Re^4: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2) by Anonymous Monk on Dec 13, 2015 at 23:03 UTC
Yeah, I thought you probably didn't need explanations, but decided to write anyway, because someone else might find it useful :)	[reply]
Re^3: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 13, 2015 at 23:19 UTC
A bit more digestible explanation (imo): IMO also :) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^3: Tri state string compare? (Solved! see update2) by Anonymous Monk on Dec 13, 2015 at 22:29 UTC
so the strings don't have to be equal length for that to work oops! of course, that would work only if the test string shorter that the tested string	[reply]