Re^3: Better way to search array for elements in other array?

ikegami,
Well, ">=" would be the numerical equivalent

You took that out of context. I also changed the 0 to a -1 which made > appropriate. Regarding the explanation for string operators versus numerical operators, I thought a pointer to perlop sufficient.

Cheers - L~R

Comment on Re^3: Better way to search array for elements in other array?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Better way to search array for elements in other array? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 24, 2011 at 23:07 UTC
I was telling the OP that he didn't need to do such a change, so it was hardly out of context.	[reply]
Re^5: Better way to search array for elements in other array? by Limbic~Region (Chancellor) on Jan 24, 2011 at 23:23 UTC
ikegami, I was telling the OP My apologies. When you responded to my node and didn't specifically address the OP, I assumed the response was directed at me. Cheers - L~R	[reply]
Re^6: Better way to search array for elements in other array? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 25, 2011 at 04:10 UTC
Sorry, I was going to explicitly mention it was for the OP, but I figured it was obvious that I knew you were familiar with "`>=`" and the diff between str and num comp ops.	[reply] [d/l]