--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
> > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
> > without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
> > with the fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me.
>
> Has this problem ever bitten you in Perl coding so far?
Only the once. Once I realized that a null byte was boolean true (and
passed that info around the office, to many confused looks and remarks
about it) then I knew thereafter, and coded accordingly. But yes, I
wrote a program that was parsing data, and if the null had been false
as expected, I'd've been happier. As it was I just had to rethink the
logic a bit, but it was still disconcerting.
> I don't think I've ever seen a bug in code that turned out to be
> because of "0.0" being true, either; I'm sure someone can find an
> example, but it's extremely rare.
No argument -- but I think I've done that as well. :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
