On 2013-03-20 17:42, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Wednesday 20 March 2013, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 2013-03-20 17:10, David Cole wrote:
Are you proposing that == behaves as STREQUAL, or as EQUAL?
What's the difference?
Okay, for <, >, there is an obvious answer, but for ==, I am trying and
failing to think of a situation where treating the arguments as numbers
would give a different result vs. treating them as strings.
E.g. "0" vs. "0.0"
Is "0.0" a floating-point number or a version string? In the context of
CMake, I would have rather expected it to be the latter. (Does CMake
even understand floating point?) If '==' assumes numbers, how do I tell
it I really meant a version string?
given that I already know how these things work with if(VARIABLE
constructs, I would expect that same thing from this new syntax.
i.e. if(VAR == 5) works just like if(${VAR} == 5)
This I think I would expect also.
Oh, really ?
Docs would say something like " == compares the strings for equality"
if(VAR == 5)
would be the same as
if("VAR" == "5")
If you want to check the value, dereference it:
if("${VAR}" == "5")
I think most programmers expect 'if(VAR == 5)' to dereference 'VAR'...
otherwise the statement is silly. So...
What I would expect to be different
from STREQUAL is that 'if("${var}" ==' is NOT the same as 'if(${var} =='.
You'd expect the quotes to make a difference ?
...yes. IMO it's not so much that CMake's implicit dereferencing is
inherently broken, as that something you would expect to prevent it
(quoting string literals) does not do so.
--
Matthew
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
