Perl oddities

[deadly7]

Today at work I discovered Perl has an "OR" operator and the usual "||" operator. They have different precedence. In fact, "OR" is the lowest of operators.

lolwtf

[Sidoh]

fuck perl

[MyndFyre]

Apparently it also has eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge, and.  Evidently, symbolic operators (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=, &&, and ||) are used for numbers, whereas their textual counterparts are for strings.

You think that's odd?  How about JavaScript - did you know that JavaScript invented the !! operator?  (Not part of the language spec but it has its uses).  It also has the === and !== to prevent type coercion when determining equality....

[deadly7]

Apparently it also has eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge, and.  Evidently, symbolic operators (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=, &&, and ||) are used for numbers, whereas their textual counterparts are for strings.

This makes more sense than "||" and "OR"

[iago]

Apparently it also has eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge, and.  Evidently, symbolic operators (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=, &&, and ||) are used for numbers, whereas their textual counterparts are for strings.

You think that's odd?  How about JavaScript - did you know that JavaScript invented the !! operator?  (Not part of the language spec but it has its uses).  It also has the === and !== to prevent type coercion when determining equality....

php also has === and !==. They're actually really useful. :)

I've never seen !!, but I'm guessing it converts a value to either 'true' or 'false' by negating it twice? If so, assembly's been doing that forever. :)

[Blaze]

Apparently it also has eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge, and.  Evidently, symbolic operators (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=, &&, and ||) are used for numbers, whereas their textual counterparts are for strings.

You think that's odd?  How about JavaScript - did you know that JavaScript invented the !! operator?  (Not part of the language spec but it has its uses).  It also has the === and !== to prevent type coercion when determining equality....

php also has === and !==. They're actually really useful. :)

I've never seen !!, but I'm guessing it converts a value to either 'true' or 'false' by negating it twice? If so, assembly's been doing that forever. :)

Vouching !== and === usefulness; if a function returns 0 as a valid, that's not false!  They're also fractionaly faster than their typeless alternative comparisons.

[rabbit]

Apparently it also has eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge, and.  Evidently, symbolic operators (==, !=, <, >, <=, >=, &&, and ||) are used for numbers, whereas their textual counterparts are for strings.

You think that's odd?  How about JavaScript - did you know that JavaScript invented the !! operator?  (Not part of the language spec but it has its uses).  It also has the === and !== to prevent type coercion when determining equality....

php also has === and !==. They're actually really useful. :)

I've never seen !!, but I'm guessing it converts a value to either 'true' or 'false' by negating it twice? If so, assembly's been doing that forever. :)

Vouching !== and === usefulness; if a function returns 0 as a valid, that's not false!  They're also fractionaly faster than their typeless alternative comparisons.

I love !== and ===

[Sidoh]

Yeah, you almost need something like === in a weakly-typed language.

[rabbit]

Yeah, you almost need something like === in a weakly-typed language.

I prefer to "variably lenient language"

[Sidoh]

Yeah, you almost need something like === in a weakly-typed language.

I prefer to "variably lenient language"

I've decided that I probably love ruby, but I think I still really dislike "variably lenient languages".

[Blaze]

Yeah, you almost need something like === in a weakly-typed language.

I prefer to "variably lenient language"

I've decided that I probably love ruby, but I think I still really dislike "variably lenient languages".

Make a class for each variable type that forces a explicit type.  :smugface:

[Sidoh]

Yeah, you almost need something like === in a weakly-typed language.

I prefer to "variably lenient language"

I've decided that I probably love ruby, but I think I still really dislike "variably lenient languages".

Make a class for each variable type that forces a explicit type.  :smugface:

Heh, but that doesn't prevent compile errors when you pass one type into a method expecting another type. Just so many problems. You can avoid them pretty well with a dose of convention and care, but it's just so much easier in a language like Java.

Don't get me wrong -- there are things that I'd never choose to do in Java. There are just a couple of things that creep me out about Ruby.

[MyndFyre]

php also has === and !==. They're actually really useful. :)

I agree.  We actually just standardized using these operators on my team at work unless there's a really good reason not to.

I've never seen !!, but I'm guessing it converts a value to either 'true' or 'false' by negating it twice? If so, assembly's been doing that forever. :)

Yeah, it coerces the value into a true Boolean (something about the phrase "true Boolean" is making me laugh).  Also fun is its counterpart, !!!.  :)  (There's actually no reason for !!!, since a single ! will coerce the value into the true Boolean value opposite of the meaning of the original).

[iago]

I've never seen !!, but I'm guessing it converts a value to either 'true' or 'false' by negating it twice? If so, assembly's been doing that forever. :)

Yeah, it coerces the value into a true Boolean (something about the phrase "true Boolean" is making me laugh).  Also fun is its counterpart, !!!.  :)  (There's actually no reason for !!!, since a single ! will coerce the value into the true Boolean value opposite of the meaning of the original).

!! and !!! and !!!! and etc seem more like conventions than actual operators, since they're just abusing the functionality that ! provides. :)

I hadn't really thought of using those before, though, it's kinda neat. And I imagine fairly language agnostic, unless some stupid language uses ! for a bitwise negate instead of logical. But they're stupid. :)