Re: Re: I've never seen this syntax before

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: I've never seen this syntax before by cLive ;-) (Prior) on Apr 05, 2001 at 01:02 UTC
It doesn't matter. I can return "0", 0, or "" for false. They are equivalent in a boolean context. cLive ;-)	[reply]
Re: Re: I've never seen this syntax before by Anonymous Monk on Apr 05, 2001 at 02:21 UTC
You're right, they are equivalent in a boolean context, but they are not equivalent. Your post implied that `not` and `!` would return 0 and that is incorrect.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
(tye)Re: I've never seen this syntax before by tye (Sage) on Apr 05, 2001 at 19:50 UTC
Actually it is more subtle than even that. You can't replace `!1` with `0` nor with `""`. `0` is wrong because, in a string context, `!1` is `""` while `0` is `"0"`. `""` is wrong because, when warnings are turned on, `0+""` generates `q(Argument "" isn't numeric)` while `0+!1` is silent. - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply] [d/l] [select]