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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #19993

Re: !0 versus true

Show key headers only | View raw

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Your confusion stems from the fact that you are proceeding from a
>>>>>> false assumption.  It is _not_ the function that is used in your
>>>>>> example, but a string representation of the function.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe I said as much.
>>>>
>>>> No, you did not.
>>>
>>> Yes, I did too.
>>>
>>> I said:
>>>
>>> | Because of the ability to retrieve (at least an approximation of)
>>> | the source of a function as a string from within running code...
>>>
>>> and you quoted it twice so far in this thread.
>>
>> But this is a different context.  You are using the functions as a value
>> (in particular, their string representations), not the return value of
>> the functions.
> 
> Of course I am.  That's the whole point.

You do not have a point.  You are misinterpreting “my” definition of 
(value-)equivalence of an expression to include “string representations of 
functions in which this expression occurs”, so that you can claim that the 
definition would not universally apply although it never was claimed that it 
applied universally.  This is the strawman argument that I am talking about.

In addition, you are ignoring that string representations of functions are 
implementation-dependent in the first place, thus not suited to support your 
point if you had one.

> You can't be blind enough not to recognize this after all the different
> ways I've phrased it so far. 

“When did you stop beating your wife?”

> Various implementations allow us to use functions this way.

Such as?

> The fact that you can do so means that two programs differing only by a
> single expression can have different behavior even though the two
> expressions are equivalent.

No, it means that ECMAScript programs which rely on function serialization 
are deeply flawed, which really is old news.
 
> Do you agree with that or not?

I do not agree with your knee-jerk interpretation of what I wrote, …

> If not, can you explain why?

… because you are ignoring the context in which I wrote it.

>> Therefore, your examples do not show that the expression that
>> is evaluated to the return value of the one function is not
>> equivalent to the expression that is evaluated to the return
>> value of the other function.
> 
> Please read more carefully.  I never claimed that.

You claimed, while ignoring the difference, that therefore “my” definition 
was not useful.  As for reading carefully, you should have read the 
following paragraph more carefully.
 
>> Which was what I had referred to in “my” definition (I put that in quotes
>> deliberately).
> 
> And, if you haven't heard it yet, I'm explaining that this definition
> is not as useful in a language which allows programmatic access to the
> source code of certain expressions.

Which is wrong, caused by your proceeding from a false premise.  Ex falso 
quodlibet.

>> IOW, you have only showed that the functions thus created are not value-
>> equivalent with regard to their string representations (and nobody had
>> claimed they were).
> 
> You seem to have things in the wrong order.

Apparently you are unable to read statements in context, and I am getting 
tired pointing that out to you.

> I'm not trying to demonstrate any exception to your definition.

Yes, you are.  You have (mis)used function serialization to demonstrate an 
exception to it where actually none exists.  The function itself is a 
context that *you* have added.

> I'm trying to show that the definition you presented offers little of use
> when discussing ES implementations.

Which is still wrong.

> [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