> No, that's not the problem here. The problem is that value("")
*randomly*
> returns 0 or VOID, when it should clearly always return one or the
other
> (it
> doesn't matter which, as long as the same input gives the same
output).Fair enough. If you read my posts, though, you will see that I also said we should check for a 0-length string. If you try to take the value of an empty string, you can't depend on the results. > Secondly, I am quite aware of the exact nature of VOID. <Snip> Yes, I can see that from your replies. > Regarding your bug, I'm *very* surpised if MACR marked: > > if( VOID ) then > -- Never execute this code > -- But it runs on Windows > end if > > as NAB, because it clearly is a bug, if the above statement were true. > However, it doesn't evaluate as true on any Windows system I've ever > tested > (I even double checked on mine just now to be sure). I expect that the bug > actually lay in your conditional expression, which may not have been > returning VOID as you believe. I'd be interested to see the /exact/ > conditional expression though, if you still have a note of it. Well, Robert, I don't know how to convince you without showing you the code, but I can't do that--on one hand, it's proprietary, and, on the other hand, the steps leading up to a void return were quite complex. I'd have to post a couple hundred lines of code, with lengthy explanations, and that's just not practical. Interestingly, though, I just checked it on Windows XP and Mac OS X, with Director MX, and got the same results you did--it was consistent across the platforms. At the time, I was developing in 8.5 on OS 9 and ME. Perhaps that explains the difference in what we're seeing. I did report it as a bug--I'm sure several people remember the brouhaha it caused. And yes, I am absolutely certain that the expression evaluated to <void>. I'm not a neophyte, Robert. I've been a coder for over 20 years, and I do know how to use the debugger, and how to accurately find, fix, and report bugs. And, yes, MM regards it as NAB. Ask Chris Nuuja if you doubt my credibility. Their position was that you should never use <void> in a boolean comparison--you should check for voidP first. Otherwise, it's no more a bug than a divide by zero. Cordially, Kerry Thompson [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
