Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #9264 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fred <email@address.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-05-12 15:22 +0100 |
| Last post | 2013-05-15 13:11 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-12 15:22 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Salvatore <sal@yojimbo.hack.invalid> - 2013-05-12 15:31 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-05-12 17:55 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-05-12 17:58 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas Mlynarczyk <thomas@mlynarczyk-webdesign.de> - 2013-05-12 18:06 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-12 16:24 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-12 18:41 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2013-05-13 13:50 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-13 14:58 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-13 10:11 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-13 15:15 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2013-05-13 17:29 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2013-05-13 19:55 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2013-05-14 06:41 -0700
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-14 21:43 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-14 23:01 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-15 05:48 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-15 06:11 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-15 15:19 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-15 20:23 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-15 20:49 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-15 21:58 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-15 22:20 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-15 22:42 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas Mlynarczyk <thomas@mlynarczyk-webdesign.de> - 2013-05-15 23:53 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-16 00:29 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-16 00:40 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-16 05:00 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 18:16 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-17 00:45 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 22:52 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-17 18:33 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-17 20:39 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-17 23:45 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-18 14:47 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-15 20:57 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-16 00:09 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-17 01:17 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-16 20:30 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-18 14:51 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 10:07 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-18 11:56 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 14:32 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-18 22:24 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 17:01 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-18 21:58 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 19:21 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-19 02:22 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 22:41 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 05:28 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 09:42 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:42 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 14:39 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-21 01:01 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-21 05:59 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-19 07:49 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 05:31 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-19 12:39 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 09:43 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:52 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 14:42 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-21 01:03 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-21 06:00 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:45 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 05:27 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 09:45 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:37 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 14:43 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-21 00:59 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-21 06:02 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-18 17:08 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-18 23:58 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 19:22 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-18 17:11 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 19:23 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 05:35 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 09:46 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:23 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-19 14:44 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-21 00:54 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-21 06:03 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-23 15:38 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-06-01 17:36 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-01 14:54 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-06-05 15:25 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-05 10:34 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-06-05 17:02 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-05 12:30 -0400
OT: What you say is not always what you mean (was: Re: bug in is_numeric) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-06-05 20:20 +0200
Re: OT: What you say is not always what you mean Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-05 14:40 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-18 21:51 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-18 17:13 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-19 00:49 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 05:24 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-19 12:40 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-19 12:43 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-19 11:29 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-18 14:53 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 18:41 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-13 08:35 -0700
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-13 20:26 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-13 20:15 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2013-05-12 13:03 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-12 18:03 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-12 18:34 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-12 19:40 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-05-12 21:51 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> - 2013-05-12 11:47 -0500
Re: bug in is_numeric Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-05-12 18:56 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas Mlynarczyk <thomas@mlynarczyk-webdesign.de> - 2013-05-12 19:05 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-12 19:38 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-12 19:46 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-12 14:11 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-12 20:39 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-12 16:51 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-13 01:27 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-12 20:35 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-13 11:07 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-13 09:02 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-13 16:57 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-13 17:10 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-13 13:52 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-13 20:28 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 18:28 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-17 00:33 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-16 22:34 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-18 10:28 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2013-05-18 08:00 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-05-18 14:18 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-05-18 13:20 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 08:47 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-18 14:05 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-18 10:16 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-18 16:14 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-05-14 10:34 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric fred <email@address.com> - 2013-05-14 14:47 +0100
Re: bug in is_numeric Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-14 14:54 +0000
Re: bug in is_numeric Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-05-15 08:05 +0200
Re: bug in is_numeric Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-05-15 06:27 -0400
Re: bug in is_numeric Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2013-05-15 13:11 +0200
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-13 16:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1843355.IoWM3vVqLd@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9292 |
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 5:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2013 7:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> In contrast to what you stated, exactly *nothing* is wrong with it when
>>>> properly quoted; that is, *in context*, which is the point. Giving you
>>>> the benefit of a doubt, you appear to have severe difficulty
>>>> understanding the concept of context as such and the importance of
>>>> context in quotations specifically; it would be good if you could work
>>>> on that.
>>>
>>> That was the beginning of your reply. There was no previous context to
>>> quote.
>>
>> It was the text that *followed*, and that you snipped, that put the part
>> of my statement that you quoted, in context.
>
> The statement was wrong in ANY context. […]
No, it was and is not.
> You would have been much better off just admitting your statement was
> wrong and moving on. But your ego doesn't allow that.
It has nothing to do with ego to explain to you why you misinterpret my
statement. It has to do with being honest, a concept that you appear to
have problems with.
>>>>> The rest of your trash
>>>> Not everything that you choose to ignore or fail to understand is
>>>> “trash” because of that.
>>> No, but almost *everything* you say is pure tripe. You can't blame this
>>> on the "context".
>>
>> You proceed from the false assumption that if someone is wrong on one
>> thing (and to date we have only *your* *opinion* on that) must be wrong
>> on another.
>
> Nope. The rest of your argument was based on a false premise.
It was not. Your turn.
>>>>> was based on this incorrect premise; it would be a waste of bandwidth
>>>>> to repost your entire tripe.
>>>> As showed by the PHP output that I posted further below, and that you
>>>> snipped, the premise is _not_ incorrect. To elaborate:
>>>
>>> The premise is completely incorrect. 'x11.11c' is NEVER considered a
>>> numeric value, as several other people (including me) have shown. And
>>> the '.' is NEVER an operator when within a quoted string.
>>
>> Apparently you do not understand that is_numeric() treats both numeric
>> literals and numeric representations in string literals the same.
>> Therefore it matters to the return value of is_numeric() if string
>> content could be a
>> numeric literal when used verbatim in PHP code. I have showed that and
>> why it could not be a numeric literal, providing the rationale for the
>> return value of is_numeric().
>
> Unlike you, I understand EXACTLY what is_numeric() does.
How did you get the idea that I would not understand what it does? I have
explained in great detail what it does. Your problem is that you
continuously misinterpret my statements. You should read them more
carefully.
> And I also understand that 'x11' can NOT be a hexadecimal representation
> in PHP,
Which I have already said *thrice* now.
> and a '.' within a quoted string is NEVER a concatenation character.
I am well aware of that, too. However, you are not aware that I was not
debating that fact, or claiming the opposite. I was discussing the reasons
why the argument to is_numeric() is not – cannot be – considered numeric.
>>>> As a result, “x11“ would be considered a constant's identifier; because
>>>> such a constant would likele be undeclared, it would be parsed as if it
>>>> was a string value containing the characters of the would-be identifier
>>>> as characters (see the PHP Notices in the test, and the generated
>>>> output for proof of that).
>>>
>>> Nope, not unless there was a define ('x11',...) statement previous to
>>> this. It is a string - plain and simple. […]
>>
>> The PHP output that I posted shows that a standalone identifier – such
>> *as if* that string *content* was used in PHP code is met with a PHP
>> Notice and is *treated as* I described above from then on. The Notice is
>> issued then because the source code is ambiguous, therefore error-prone.
>> As you confirmed, if a constant having that sequence of identifiers would
>> be declared, the source code would change meaning.
>
> Nope, it is NOT a standalone identifier, and it is NOT a constant. […]
Apparently you have a problem understanding the concept of a hypothetical
argument as well. I was explaining how the string *content* *would be*
parsed *if* it *would be* used verbatim in PHP code, which explains *why* it
cannot be considered numeric.
> Also, the source code was NOT ambiguous.
Again, the string *content* *would be* ambiguous *if* used *verbatim* in PHP
code, in particular the identifier *would* *make* the resulting source code
ambiguous (*assuming* it compiled).
> And defining a constant would NOT change the meaning; […]
Yes, it would. _Declaring_ a constant with the identifier
x11
would change the evaluation value of the *standalone* expression
x11
to the string representation of the value of the constant with that
identifier, instead of the string value created from the identifier's
characters. For example:
$ php -r 'echo x11 . "\n";'
PHP Notice: Use of undefined constant x11 - assumed 'x11' in Command line
code on line 1
PHP Stack trace:
PHP 1. {main}() Command line code:0
x11
$ php -r 'define("x11", 42); echo x11 . "\n";'
42
Do you see the “assumed 'x11'” in the Notice?
>> This is important because if a sequence of characters is potentially a
>> constant identifier, it cannot be a numeric literal at the same time.
>
> Nope, a constant identifier is NOT replaced within a quoted string.
I said “*potentially* a constant identifier”. That is (AISB), *if* such a
constant would *not* be declared, it *would be* replaced as I described.
The PHP output I already posted *clearly* shows that. Here it is again:
| $ php -r 'echo x11 . x11c;'
| PHP Notice: Use of undefined constant x11 - assumed 'x11' in Command
| line code on line 1
| PHP Stack trace:
| PHP 1. {main}() Command line code:0
| PHP Notice: Use of undefined constant x11c - assumed 'x11c' in Command
| line code on line 1
| PHP Stack trace:
| PHP 1. {main}() Command line code:0
| x11x11c
^^^^^^^
| $ php -v
| PHP 5.4.4-15 (cli) (built: Mar 22 2013 15:41:03)
| Copyright (c) 1997-2012 The PHP Group
| Zend Engine v2.4.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2012 Zend Technologies
| with XCache v3.0.1, Copyright (c) 2005-2013, by mOo
| with Xdebug v2.2.1, Copyright (c) 2002-2012, by Derick Rethans
| with XCache Optimizer v3.0.1, Copyright (c) 2005-2013, by mOo
| with XCache Cacher v3.0.1, Copyright (c) 2005-2013, by mOo
| with XCache Coverager v3.0.1, Copyright (c) 2005-2013, by mOo
How can you deny that the concatenation
x11 . x11c
is evaluated to
'x11' . 'x11c'
and thus to
'x11x11c'
when neither identifier is that of a constant?
>>>> We have now ascertaine that, as Thomas Mlynarczyk stated, “x11.11c”
>>>> cannot be a proper numeric literal in PHP (it would be an operation
>>>> expression
>>>> [that would not compile, but that is unimportant from here]). As that
>>>> [is
>>>> the case, “'x11.11c'” also is not considered numeric in PHP, which is
>>>> why
>>>
>>> No, it is a string value, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> It is a string value whose suitability to serve as a numeric value is
>> being
>> tested with is_numeric(). Therefore it matters what the PHP grammar has
>> to say about numeric values.
>
> It is not a constant like you indicate.
I have not indicated that it is a constant. I have said repeatedly now that
*if* the string value *was* used verbatim in PHP code, it *would be*
considered a concatenation operation with the first argument being
considered a constant identifier. An identifier that *would be* resolved as
I said if *no* such constant *would be* declared.
>>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual
>>>> and implementation in said PHP version as
>>>>
>>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>>
>>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE
>>>> (binary integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the manual,
>>>> and they do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>>> Again, absolutely nothing to do with this problem.
>> Yes, it has. The OP claimed there was a bug in is_numeric(). If we
>> assume the manual to be correct, this example shows that there actually
>> *would be* a bug in is_numeric() in PHP 5.4.4(-15) and 5.4.15(-1 on
>> Debian GNU/Linux). But it would be *another* bug.
>>
>> That might be immaterial to you, but I consider it important for my
>> fellow PHP developers to learn of it.
>
> Again, completely unrelated to what the OP asked. […]
A difference between the documentation and the implementation of
is_numeric() is _not_ at all unrelated to the subject of “bug in
is_numeric”.
> […]
> No wonder you're so well known as a troll in so many newsgroups.
It takes one to know one.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-13 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1614127.Pgo8jzBdSf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9298 |
In order not to be misunderstood again … Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 5/13/2013 5:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> The PHP output that I posted shows that a standalone identifier – such >>>>> We have now ascertaine that, as Thomas Mlynarczyk stated, “x11.11c” >>>>> cannot be a proper numeric literal in PHP (it would be an operation >>>>> expression >>>>> [that would not compile, but that is unimportant from here]). As that >>>>> [is the case, “'x11.11c'” also is not considered numeric in PHP, which >>>>> is why >>>> No, it is a string value, nothing more, nothing less. >>> It is a string value whose suitability to serve as a numeric value is >>> being tested with is_numeric(). Therefore it matters what the PHP >>> grammar has to say about numeric values. >> It is not a constant like you indicate. > > I have not indicated that it is a constant. I have said repeatedly now > that *if* the string value *was* used verbatim in PHP code, it *would be* string _content_ (“string value” might be ambiguous) > considered a concatenation operation with the first argument being first _operand_, not first argument > considered a constant identifier. An identifier that *would be* resolved > as I said if *no* such constant *would be* declared. PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-13 13:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kmr912$tgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9298 |
On 5/13/2013 10:57 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 5/13/2013 5:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 5/12/2013 7:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> In contrast to what you stated, exactly *nothing* is wrong with it when >>>>> properly quoted; that is, *in context*, which is the point. Giving you >>>>> the benefit of a doubt, you appear to have severe difficulty >>>>> understanding the concept of context as such and the importance of >>>>> context in quotations specifically; it would be good if you could work >>>>> on that. >>>> >>>> That was the beginning of your reply. There was no previous context to >>>> quote. >>> >>> It was the text that *followed*, and that you snipped, that put the part >>> of my statement that you quoted, in context. >> >> The statement was wrong in ANY context. […] > > No, it was and is not. > Yes, but you're too stoopid to understand that and/or too stubborn to admit you are wrong. >> You would have been much better off just admitting your statement was >> wrong and moving on. But your ego doesn't allow that. > > It has nothing to do with ego to explain to you why you misinterpret my > statement. It has to do with being honest, a concept that you appear to > have problems with. > It has everything to do with your tremendous ego that you keep insisting your code is correct - when any beginner who understands the least bit about PHP knows it is not. But once again you're making a fool of yourself. You make incorrect statements and go off on completely unrelated tangents - as a weak attempt to prove your competence. It does just the opposite. But the that's just like you. It's why you are so well known as a troll in many newsgroups. But then I'm not going to stroke your ego any more, Pointed Head. Get a job washing dishes - it's more within your capabilities. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-13 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <59527066.lHcMiTWCX3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9304 |
Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/13/2013 10:57 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 5/13/2013 5:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 5/12/2013 7:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> In contrast to what you stated, exactly *nothing* is wrong with it >>>>>> when >>>>>> properly quoted; that is, *in context*, which is the point. Giving >>>>>> you the benefit of a doubt, you appear to have severe difficulty >>>>>> understanding the concept of context as such and the importance of >>>>>> context in quotations specifically; it would be good if you could >>>>>> work on that. >>>>> That was the beginning of your reply. There was no previous context >>>>> to quote. >>>> It was the text that *followed*, and that you snipped, that put the >>>> part of my statement that you quoted, in context. >>> The statement was wrong in ANY context. […] >> No, it was and is not. > > Yes, […] No. It is the context provided by the following text, that you did not quote, in which it is correct, as I was explaining how the string content would be parsed (up to a point) if used verbatim. >>> You would have been much better off just admitting your statement was >>> wrong and moving on. But your ego doesn't allow that. >> >> It has nothing to do with ego to explain to you why you misinterpret my >> statement. It has to do with being honest, a concept that you appear to >> have problems with. > > It has everything to do with your tremendous ego that you keep insisting > your code is correct […] My code is correct because it executes. But that is just another red herring of yours: My *code* was never at issue before in this discussion. My *explanation* as to *why* the argument to is_numeric() here cannot be considered numeric is correct because the tests – with the PHP CLI, for crying out loud – clearly show that it is. What is wrong here is only your interpretation of my explanation. Unfortunately, you are in the habit to accept only your (wrong) interpretations of texts as their true meaning, regardless of what their original authors or a third party has to say about them. The record shows. So much for “ego”. PointedEars -- > If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices" > in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right... Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field. -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-16 18:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kn3maj$g1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9286 |
On 05/13/2013 05:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2013 7:27 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2013 2:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2013 1:38 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>> Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sanders Kaufman schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>> if(is_numeric('x11.11c') returns TRUE
>>>>>>>>> Try it without the quotation marks around the number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which number? x11.11c is not a number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The misconception might partially draw from the fact that 0x11 is a
>>>>>>> number, the hexadecimal representation of decimal 16¹ + 16⁰ = 17
>>>>>>> (even in PHP).
>
> To be clear, I was referring to *Sanders'* misconception.
>
>>>>>>> In other programming languages that require a leading
>>>>>>> “0” and do not have “.” as (concatenation) operator,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x11.11c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could be the representation of decimal 16¹ + 16⁰ + 16⁻¹ + 16⁻² + 13 ×
>>>>>>> 16⁻³ = 17.06958 (BTW, I have written a drop-in replacement for
>>>>>>> ECMAScript's parseFloat() that can do that, with the usual rounding
>>>>>>> errors [1]).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In PHP, however,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x11.11c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be equivalent to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (x11) . (11c)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Intentionally misquoted, as usual.
>>>>
>>>> And exactly what is wrong with what I quoted?
>>>
>>> In contrast to what you stated, exactly *nothing* is wrong with it when
>>> properly quoted; that is, *in context*, which is the point. Giving you
>>> the benefit of a doubt, you appear to have severe difficulty
>>> understanding the concept of context as such and the importance of
>>> context in quotations specifically; it would be good if you could work on
>>> that.
>>
>> That was the beginning of your reply. There was no previous context to
>> quote.
>
> It was the text that *followed*, and that you snipped, that put the part of
> my statement that you quoted, in context.
>
>>>> The rest of your trash
>>>
>>> Not everything that you choose to ignore or fail to understand is “trash”
>>> because of that.
>>
>> No, but almost *everything* you say is pure tripe. You can't blame this
>> on the "context".
>
> You proceed from the false assumption that if someone is wrong on one thing
> (and to date we have only *your* *opinion* on that) must be wrong on
> another.
>
>>>> was based on this incorrect premise; it would be a waste of bandwidth to
>>>> repost your entire tripe.
>>> As showed by the PHP output that I posted further below, and that you
>>> snipped, the premise is _not_ incorrect. To elaborate:
>>
>> The premise is completely incorrect. 'x11.11c' is NEVER considered a
>> numeric value, as several other people (including me) have shown. And
>> the '.' is NEVER an operator when within a quoted string.
>
> Apparently you do not understand that is_numeric() treats both numeric
> literals and numeric representations in string literals the same. Therefore
> it matters to the return value of is_numeric() if string content could be a
> numeric literal when used verbatim in PHP code. I have showed that and why
> it could not be a numeric literal, providing the rationale for the return
> value of is_numeric().
>
>>> As a result, “x11“ would be considered a constant's identifier; because
>>> such a constant would likele be undeclared, it would be parsed as if it
>>> was a string value containing the characters of the would-be identifier
>>> as characters (see the PHP Notices in the test, and the generated output
>>> for proof of that).
>>
>> Nope, not unless there was a define ('x11',...) statement previous to
>> this. It is a string - plain and simple. […]
>
> The PHP output that I posted shows that a standalone identifier – such *as
> if* that string *content* was used in PHP code is met with a PHP Notice and
> is *treated as* I described above from then on. The Notice is issued then
> because the source code is ambiguous, therefore error-prone. As you
> confirmed, if a constant having that sequence of identifiers would be
> declared, the source code would change meaning.
>
> This is important because if a sequence of characters is potentially a
> constant identifier, it cannot be a numeric literal at the same time.
>
>>> “11c” would be considered a constant identifier as well (and treated the
>>> same way) if it did not start with a decimal digit. Or it would be
>>> considered a decimal literal if it did not contain/end with “c” (allowed
>>> would only be “e” followed by a decimal literal, for the
>>> exponential/scientific decimal format). But as it does contain/end with
>>> “c”
>>> that is not in a hexadecimal literal, it is a *syntax error*. Therefore,
>>> the entire expression would not compile and the entire PHP program would
>>> not compile, being syntactically in error.
>>
>> Wrong again. In PHP you have to have a define() statement to create a
>> constant. It is part of string. […]
>
> I am aware that one needs define() for constants. This has nothing to do
> with the fact that an identifier is treated as a string value containing the
> identifiers characters if there is no constant declared with that
> identifier. And it has nothing to do with the fact that a constant cannot
> start with a decimal digit, or that a decimal literal cannot contain the
> character “c”. That therefore such a PHP program would be syntactical in
> error; that therefore, too, “x11.11c” cannot be a numeric literal, and that
> therefore, too, is_numeric('x11.11c') MUST return FALSE (which, contrary to
> the OP's claims, it does).
>
>>> We have now ascertaine that, as Thomas Mlynarczyk stated, “x11.11c”
>>> cannot be a proper numeric literal in PHP (it would be an operation
>>> expression
>>> [that would not compile, but that is unimportant from here]). As that is
>>> the case, “'x11.11c'” also is not considered numeric in PHP, which is why
>>
>> No, it is a string value, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> It is a string value whose suitability to serve as a numeric value is being
> tested with is_numeric(). Therefore it matters what the PHP grammar has to
> say about numeric values.
>
>>> is_numeric('x11.11c')
>>>
>>> must return FALSE. By contrast, is_numeric('0x11') returns TRUE.
>>
>> is_numeric('0x11') has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
>
> Yes, it has. Both the added “0” prefix and the omitted “.11c” suffix make
> “0x11” a proper numeric (hexadecimal integer) representation as per the PHP
> grammar. Which is what is_numeric() is supposed to test.
>
is_numeric() checks to see if the first two characters are '0x' (or
'0X'), but it does not add a leading '0' if the first character is an
'x' (or 'X')... nor does it simply omit the part that is not a number
'.11c'. is_numeric() checks the string as passed without altering it.
>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual and
>>> implementation in said PHP version as
>>>
>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>
>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE (binary
>>> integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the manual, and they
>>> do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>>
Correct as per my other reply.
>> Again, absolutely nothing to do with this problem.
>
> Yes, it has. The OP claimed there was a bug in is_numeric(). If we assume
> the manual to be correct, this example shows that there actually *would be*
> a bug in is_numeric() in PHP 5.4.4(-15) and 5.4.15(-1 on Debian GNU/Linux).
> But it would be *another* bug.
>
> That might be immaterial to you, but I consider it important for my fellow
> PHP developers to learn of it.
>
>
> PointedEars
>
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
-Have you been to www.php.net yet?-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-17 00:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2538859.UtKtqhLufE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9394 |
SwissCheese wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 05:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> It is a string value whose suitability to serve as a numeric value is
>> being tested with is_numeric(). Therefore it matters what the PHP
>> grammar has to say about numeric values.
>>
>>>> is_numeric('x11.11c')
>>>>
>>>> must return FALSE. By contrast, is_numeric('0x11') returns TRUE.
>>>
>>> is_numeric('0x11') has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
>>
>> Yes, it has. Both the added “0” prefix and the omitted “.11c” suffix
>> make “0x11” a proper numeric (hexadecimal integer) representation as per
>> the PHP
>> grammar. Which is what is_numeric() is supposed to test.
>
> is_numeric() checks to see if the first two characters are '0x' (or
> '0X'), but it does not add a leading '0' if the first character is an
> 'x' (or 'X')... nor does it simply omit the part that is not a number
> '.11c'. is_numeric() checks the string as passed without altering it.
Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant parts
of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you quote more
carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds anything.
>>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual
>>>> and implementation in said PHP version as
>>>>
>>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>>
>>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE
>>>> (binary integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the manual,
>>>> and they do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>
> Correct as per my other reply.
It is not correct if the manual says something else, and it does. Either
the manual or the implementation is wrong.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SwissCheese <swisscheese@cfl.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-16 22:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kn44no$cs5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9395 |
On 05/16/2013 06:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SwissCheese wrote:
>
>> On 05/13/2013 05:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> It is a string value whose suitability to serve as a numeric value is
>>> being tested with is_numeric(). Therefore it matters what the PHP
>>> grammar has to say about numeric values.
>>>
>>>>> is_numeric('x11.11c')
>>>>>
>>>>> must return FALSE. By contrast, is_numeric('0x11') returns TRUE.
>>>>
>>>> is_numeric('0x11') has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
>>>
>>> Yes, it has. Both the added “0” prefix and the omitted “.11c” suffix
>>> make “0x11” a proper numeric (hexadecimal integer) representation as per
>>> the PHP
>>> grammar. Which is what is_numeric() is supposed to test.
>>
>> is_numeric() checks to see if the first two characters are '0x' (or
>> '0X'), but it does not add a leading '0' if the first character is an
>> 'x' (or 'X')... nor does it simply omit the part that is not a number
>> '.11c'. is_numeric() checks the string as passed without altering it.
>
> Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant parts
> of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you quote more
> carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds anything.
>
Aside from the fact that I'm fairly sure 'Pointed Ears' is not part
of -your- real name, maybe you would notice that my real name is in my
signature.
>>>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual
>>>>> and implementation in said PHP version as
>>>>>
>>>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>>>
>>>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE
>>>>> (binary integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the manual,
>>>>> and they do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>>
>> Correct as per my other reply.
>
> It is not correct if the manual says something else, and it does. Either
> the manual or the implementation is wrong.
>
>
'Correct' in that the documentation is wrong... as I stated in another
reply.
> PointedEars
>
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
-Have you been to www.php.net yet?-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 10:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2369518.AdP9E0KhnU@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9401 |
SwissCheese wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 06:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> SwissCheese wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2013 05:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> is_numeric('0x11') has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
>>>> Yes, it has. Both the added “0” prefix and the omitted “.11c” suffix
>>>> make “0x11” a proper numeric (hexadecimal integer) representation as
>>>> per the PHP grammar. Which is what is_numeric() is supposed to test.
>>> is_numeric() checks to see if the first two characters are '0x' (or
>>> '0X'), but it does not add a leading '0' if the first character is an
>>> 'x' (or 'X')... nor does it simply omit the part that is not a number
>>> '.11c'. is_numeric() checks the string as passed without altering it.
>> Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant
>> parts of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you
>> quote more carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds
>> anything.
>
> Aside from the fact that I'm fairly sure 'Pointed Ears' is not part
> of -your- real name,
It's “PointedEars”, stupid, without the space. And it is customary to
include the nickname in the From header field value as I did.
> maybe you would notice that my real name is in my signature.
A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From header
field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception.
>>>>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual
>>>>>> and implementation in said PHP version as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>>>>
>>>>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE
>>>>>> (binary integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the
>>>>>> manual, and they do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>>>
>>> Correct as per my other reply.
>>
>> It is not correct if the manual says something else, and it does. Either
>> the manual or the implementation is wrong.
>
> 'Correct' in that the documentation is wrong... as I stated in another
> reply.
No, you did not.
Score adjusted
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 08:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kn7q8n$of0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9411 |
On 05/18/2013 04:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> SwissCheese wrote:
>
>> On 05/16/2013 06:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant
>>> parts of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you
>>> quote more carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds
>>> anything.
>>
>> Aside from the fact that I'm fairly sure 'Pointed Ears' is not part
>> of -your- real name,
>
> It's “PointedEars”, stupid, without the space. And it is customary to
> include the nickname in the From header field value as I did.
>
...not really sure why you have decided to attack me/start name calling
but whatever.
>> maybe you would notice that my real name is in my signature.
>
> A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From header
> field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception.
>
...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see an
e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a Usenet
account.
>>>>>>> However, there appears to be an *actual* mismatch between PHP manual
>>>>>>> and implementation in said PHP version as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is_numeric('0b11001001')
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> returns FALSE when according to the manual it should return TRUE
>>>>>>> (binary integer literals are available since PHP 5.4.0 per the
>>>>>>> manual, and they do compile and properly evaluate in tests there.
>>>>
>>>> Correct as per my other reply.
>>>
>>> It is not correct if the manual says something else, and it does. Either
>>> the manual or the implementation is wrong.
>>
>> 'Correct' in that the documentation is wrong... as I stated in another
>> reply.
>
> No, you did not.
>
Well, it appears to have landed in the bit-bucket as I can't find it
either. In any regard, I was agreeing with you that there is a mismatch.
>
> Score adjusted
>
> PointedEars
>
...not keeping score.
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
-Have you been to www.php.net yet?-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 14:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a58k6a-pdn.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan> |
| In reply to | #9412 |
On 18-05-2013 14:00, Norman Peelman wrote: >> A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From >> header >> field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception. >> > > ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see an > e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a Usenet > account. It's not a 'rule'.... It maybe more polite, but that's a different discussion..... -- Luuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-4BC6AB.13203718052013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #9412 |
In article <kn7q8n$of0$1@dont-email.me>, Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > On 05/18/2013 04:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > SwissCheese wrote: > > > >> On 05/16/2013 06:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >>> Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant > >>> parts of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you > >>> quote more carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds > >>> anything. > >> > >> Aside from the fact that I'm fairly sure 'Pointed Ears' is not part > >> of -your- real name, > > > > It's “PointedEars”, stupid, without the space. And it is customary to > > include the nickname in the From header field value as I did. > > > > ...not really sure why you have decided to attack me/start name calling > but whatever. > > >> maybe you would notice that my real name is in my signature. > > > > A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From header > > field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception. > > > > ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see an > e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a Usenet > account. There aren't any rules, it's just PointyHead trying to appoint himself as Fuhrer of this ng. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 08:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kn7t0p$6lt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9412 |
On 5/18/2013 8:00 AM, Norman Peelman wrote: > > ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see an > e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a Usenet > account. > There aren't. These are just Pointed Heads way of proving his manhood. Most others don't care as long as you're not trolling. But then he's well known for this in several newsgroups, not just this one. Go ahead and use a nick if you want - and ignore Pointed Head. He's not worth the trouble. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 14:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kn7u9s$8cb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #9412 |
On 18/05/13 13:00, Norman Peelman wrote: > >> A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From >> header >> field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception. >> > > ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see > an e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a > Usenet account. > There are no rules. There is accepted custom and practice and personal decisions toted as standards, by the likes of pointy rears. There are very very good reasons to remain casually anonymous on Usenet. If you stray into any areas that arouse strong passions. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 10:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kn828l$1jb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9419 |
On 5/18/2013 9:05 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 18/05/13 13:00, Norman Peelman wrote: >> >>> A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From >>> header >>> field value first, and you are evading the issue of your misconception. >>> >> >> ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules. I have yet to see >> an e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while setting up a >> Usenet account. >> > There are no rules. There is accepted custom and practice and personal > decisions toted as standards, by the likes of pointy rears. > > There are very very good reasons to remain casually anonymous on Usenet. > If you stray into any areas that arouse strong passions. > Yea, trolls definitely have a desire to remain anonymous. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-18 16:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5286492.HC7PQExEo4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #9412 |
Norman Peelman wrote: > On 05/18/2013 04:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> SwissCheese wrote: >>> On 05/16/2013 06:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Aside from getting a real name and learning to quote only the relevant >>>> parts of what you are replying to, you want to learn to read what you >>>> quote more carefully. I have not even implied that is_numeric() adds >>>> anything. >>> Aside from the fact that I'm fairly sure 'Pointed Ears' is not part >>> of -your- real name, >> It's “PointedEars”, stupid, without the space. And it is customary to >> include the nickname in the From header field value as I did. > > ...not really sure why you have decided to attack me/start name calling > but whatever. A pot calling the kettle black. You are giving yourself too much credit (or too little, depending how you look at it). >>> maybe you would notice that my real name is in my signature. >> >> A real name consists of first *and* last name; it belongs in the From >> header field value first, and you are evading the issue of your >> misconception. > > ...sorry, I was not aware there were so many rules Just common sense, including basic courtesy. > I have yet to see an e-mail/news-reader client that explains them while > setting up a Usenet account. I know of no such newsreader either (presumably the abilities mentioned above were assumed), but the KNode (4.10.2 and previous versions) handbook (under menu Help→KNode handbook, or F1 key) also has a chapter titled “A journey in the World of Newsgroups”, which is instructive. If necessary, you would probably find basic instructions for your Thunderbird in its handbook (menu Help→Help Contents, or F1 key), or on mozilla.com. And then there is news.newusers.* and dozens of good Usenet guides on the Web. F'up2 poster PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-14 10:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr-C57F5D.10343114052013@News.Individual.NET> |
| In reply to | #9264 |
In article <MPG.2bf9b5f139f7cb7d9896aa@news.virginmedia.com>,
fred <email@address.com> wrote:
> if(is_numeric('x11.11c') returns TRUE
> and variations eg: z1111x is also true
Nope, as others have pointed out, works as it should:
sandman@dream ~> uname -a
Darwin dream.sandman.net 12.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 12.3.0: Sun Jan 6
22:37:10 PST 2013; root:xnu-2050.22.13~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
sandman@dream ~> php -v
PHP 5.3.15 with Suhosin-Patch (cli) (built: Aug 24 2012 17:45:44)
Copyright (c) 1997-2012 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.3.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2012 Zend Technologies
sandman@dream ~> php -r 'var_dump(is_numeric("x11.11c"));'
bool(false)
--
Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fred <email@address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-14 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2bfc50d788d40d139896b3@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #9323 |
I can't work out if you're all a bunch of mentally deficient half wits or just too stupid to run a correct test. Either way its been reported I'm no longer interested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-14 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kmtj75$pdo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9325 |
On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:47:57 +0100, fred wrote:
> I can't work out if you're all a bunch of mentally deficient half wits
> or just too stupid to run a correct test.
>
> Either way its been reported I'm no longer interested.
You seem to have totally missed the points that are being made:
1) The test you ran on your system (this is the code that Sal asked you
to run) gave a correct result for the test case you specified.
Specifically it returned boolean value FALSE for an is_numeric() test of
the string value "x11.11c".
2) The code that you posted here as a specific example of failing code
was obviously not the code that is actually failing, because it was
syntatically broken php. Specifically it had a terminating ";" outside of
the braces "{}" that enclosed the print statement following the test
condition in the if clause.
At the moment, the only "evidence" for the problem is your original
assertion, which is not supported by the specific test case that Sal
asked you to execute, and which was based on the exact error that you
originally asserted.
Yes we would like to help you solve the problem, but so far, you have not
shown any evidence that the problem is any sort of bug in is_numeric. If
anything, the test case that Sal gave you proves that on your machine,
under the conditions that you specified, is_numeric is working properly.
The conclusion is that the case that's causing what you perceive to be an
error condition isn't the case that you originally or subsequently
stated, and unless you tell us what the actual code is that causes what
you perceive to be an error, there's very little we can do to help.
My suspicion is that although for some reason you think the string value
"x11.11c" is being passed to the test function is_numeric, some other
value is actually being passed.
--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-15 08:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr-F7BA33.08054115052013@News.Individual.NET> |
| In reply to | #9325 |
In article <MPG.2bfc50d788d40d139896b3@news.virginmedia.com>, fred <email@address.com> wrote: > I can't work out if you're all a bunch of mentally deficient half wits > or just too stupid to run a correct test. A "correct test" has been run by almost ten people now. > Either way its been reported I'm no longer interested. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-05-15 06:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kmvno3$3cu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9339 |
On 5/15/2013 2:05 AM, Sandman wrote: > In article <MPG.2bfc50d788d40d139896b3@news.virginmedia.com>, > fred <email@address.com> wrote: > >> I can't work out if you're all a bunch of mentally deficient half wits >> or just too stupid to run a correct test. > > A "correct test" has been run by almost ten people now. > >> Either way its been reported I'm no longer interested. > > > > My suspicion is that he found his problem, and it was not in is_numeric(). But he doesn't want to admit it. Nothing's been reported in the bugs database for the last week. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web