Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20031

Re: !0 versus true

Show all headers | View raw

[Cancel & Supersedes]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> <http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27a/>
>>>>> <http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27b/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> In all browsers I tested, the programs displayed different behavior,
>>>>> even though the two programs are identical except that one expression
>>>>> has been replaced by an equivalent one in the second.
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> Name the functions in the two examples f and g to lessen the
>>>> confusion.
>>> 
>>> That would only confuse the point.  The point is that the only
>>> difference between the two programs is the substitution of `0` in the
>>> second for the equivalent `+!1` in the first.  Nonetheless the two
>>> programs have different behavior.  Making an additional change by
>>> changing the name of the function would muddy the waters.
>>
>> You are the one who is muddying the waters here.
>>
>> The point is that you continue to fail to differentiate between
>>
>>   A) an expression
>>
>> and
>>
>>   B) the string representation of the function that contains it.
> 
> No, as I've demonstrated repeatedly, I understand the difference.
> 
> However, even though the two programs I supplied differ only in one
> equivalent expression, they have different behavior.
> 
> Stipulating the definition of equivalent expressions as you've
> presented it, if we define Document A as the one residing at
> 
>     <http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27a/>
> 
> and Document B as the one residing at
> 
>     http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27b/>

How typical of you that you would make this a personal issue.
 
> The argument, in excruciating detail, proceeds as follows:
> 
>  1. Document A and Document B differ only on line 9.
>  2. The difference on line 9 starts at column 29.
>  3. That difference falls inside a client-side program spanning lines
>     7 - 18.  These two distinct programs we will label Program A
>     and Program B, respectively.
>  4. The difference from Program A to Program B can be described as
>     the deletion of the characters "+!1" and the insertion of the
>     character "0".
>  5. At character 29 of line 9, an expression is allowable.
>  6. "+!1" is a legal expression.
>  7. "0" is a legal expression.
>  8. "+!1" and "0" are equivalent expressions.
>  9. Hence Program A and Program B differ only in the substitution of
>     equivalent expressions.
> 10. Loading Document A and Document B into Chrome 27.0.1453.94 (*)
>     yield differing output.
> 11. That differing output is the result of the differences between
>     Program A and Program B.
> 12. Therefore, two programs that differ only in the substitution of
>     equivalent expressions can yield differing output.
> 
> (*) Feel free to substitute another modern browser.
> 
> Can you accept this argument

No (but that is not the reason why I also reject your later interpretation).

> If not, which is the first step you reject?

10.

> And why do you reject it?

There is no guarantee for that.  AISB:

| An implementation-dependent representation of the function is returned.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Several other browsers than Chrome (27.0.1453.94) do support a different 
ECMAScript implementation than Google V8 JavaScript.

The ECMAScript Language Specification allows that the return value does not 
contain the contents of the original /FunctionBody/, and it allows that it 
contains other expressions not found in the original.  The only requirement 
is:

| This representation has the syntax of a /FunctionDeclaration/. 

As I indicated before, a conforming ECMAScript implementation is allowed to 
return

  "function () {}"

both for

  (function a (b) { return !+1; }).toString()

and for

  (function c (d, e) { return 0; }).toString()

because

| 13 Function Definition
| 
| Syntax
| 
| […]
| FunctionExpression :
|   function Identifier_opt ( FormalParameterList_opt ) { FunctionBody }
| 
| […]
| FunctionBody :
|    SourceElements_opt

or, in reduced ABNF:

FunctionExpression = "function" [Identifier] "(" [FormalParameterList] ")" 
"{" [SourceElements] "}"

This means that as for their string representation those two functions might 
or might not be value-equivalent.  But they would still be (weakly) 
functional equivalent, because the expressions leading to their return 
values are (value-)equivalent.  (In this case there would also be strong 
functional equivalence because the function calls cannot have side-effects.)

> From here, it's my *interpretation* that the definition supplied is
> not particularly useful, especially in the context specified by the OP
> of minifiers. […]

And precisely *that* is your fallacy.  To break it down for you:

You are falsely assuming that equivalence must be transitive, even 
universal.  That is, you are assuming that if two expressions in a program 
are equivalent, all functions and all programs containing those expressions 
must be equivalent as well.

You find a corner case (string representation of functions in ECMAScript 
implementations) in which this assumption of yours *might not* be fulfilled, 
and therefore you doubt the usefulness of the *original* definition of 
expression/value-equivalence, in the context of ECMAScript implementations.

Can you see your mistake now?

> [tl;dr]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

!0 versus true Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-05-23 23:31 +1000
  Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-23 07:58 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-23 17:53 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 12:17 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 21:56 +0200
        Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 13:13 -0700
          Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 22:23 +0200
      Re: !0 versus true Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-24 22:08 +0000
        Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-25 07:00 +0200
          Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-25 20:04 -0700
            Re: !0 versus true "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-05-26 11:07 +0200
            Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-26 13:11 +0200
              Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 13:28 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 12:07 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 11:27 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 23:30 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 17:12 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 02:40 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 20:29 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-28 15:38 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 08:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 21:14 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 15:38 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 13:20 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 06:37 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 16:28 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 13:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 23:34 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 06:30 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-29 17:33 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 11:34 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-31 10:22 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-31 13:04 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:13 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:16 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:25 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true imma harper <immaterial_uk@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-31 09:46 -0700
    Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 21:38 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-01 17:37 +0100
  Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-02 21:03 +0100
    Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-03 04:45 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-04 17:23 +0100

csiph-web