in reply to Re^3: RFC: Verify Interpreter and Language
in thread RFC: Verify Interpreter and Language

I see what you mean. This is what I provide. Give me your opinion on when I can tweak it, or reasons to change it.

== works on strings and numbers in Verify.

"" == 0, 1 == "1", "2" == 1+1 would all return true.

"a0" == 0 would return false, since a0 is not convertable to a number.

If you refer to a variable that does not exist, the empty string is returned. So doing something like "" == x, where x isn't defined, would return true.

I'm convinced to add isDefined/isNull, similar to perl's defined.

p.s. Thanks for the feedback. Whole point is to get some tweaking in on this before I shoot myself in the foot. :)