Question about checks for min and max values

[Henry Melancon]

When I initially asked the question on this topic, I had no idea it would generate this much discussion.

I was unhappy that Filepro was treating a blank field the same as zero in a numeric comparison.  If I indicated zero as a minimum, I did not want a blank field to be acceptable and treated the same as zero.

I will just have to add more code and live with it.

Thanks for all the interesting input.......Hopefully this is the last word on this thread.........

Henry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com [mailto:filepro-list-
> bounces at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Palmquist
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:38 PM
> To: Christopher Yerry
> Cc: filepro-list at seaslug.org
> Subject: Re: Question about checks for min and max values
> 
> Christopher Yerry wrote:
> >>>You think "" eq "0" is bad? You should have heard me when I first
> >>>discovered
> >>>that "abcdefg" eq "abc"  !
> >>>But even that is perfectly OK and logical and useful (actually _very_
> >>>useful) and doesn't get in the way or cause any problems as long as you
> >>>know
> >>>about it.
> >>
> >>It may be useful, but I continue to assert that it is neither logical,
> >>nor OK.
> >>
> >>The semantics of "=" are *very* well defined in the discipline of
> >>programming language design, and language designers override them at
> >>their peril.  Spelling it differently (ie: "eq") doesn't *really* get
> >>you off the hook.
> >>
> >>IMHO.
> >
> >
> >>Didn't Nancy once point out that in truth, filepro was around before
> most of
> >>these other languages and there was no such standard at the time fp was
> >>created, and in fact filepro's behavior adheres to the standards of
> basic
> >>math and logic which were worked out looooong before annnnnnny
> programming
> >>language? And it's most current programming languages that deviate?
> >
> >
> > I don't know what Nancy Said (Although I doubt she said this). I have
> been coding since the early
> > 70's (1973 Digital pdp8 os/8 with massive a 128k that filled a cabinet).
> And we used "=". filePro
> > was out in the trs80's in 1976 - 1977 ? That date is after 1973, (OS/8
> Basic (ITT Teletypes),
> > FORTRAN, (pascal and COBOL -IBM 36 on punch cards!!!)). These all had
> "=". C (and B )had ":=" or
> > "==" - still does; C# retained this too.  So the "That's how it used to
> be doesn't fly".
> >
> > Additionally filePro was written in "C" or "B" as far as I have been
> told. That standard is "==".
> 
> 
> Just because filePro is written in C does not require the syntax of
> filePro to be "C like".  The user interface for filePro which determined
> the syntax and implementation of the language was determined by the
> filePro development team.
> 
> As I recall the first release of the IF:/THEN: version of filePro, it
> only allowed "eq, gt, ge, lt, le" relational operands on the IF line of
> a statement.  The "=" sign was reserved for the assignment function on a
> THEN: line.
> 
> This thread has wandered far from the first postings that were
> discussing the difference between "Equivalence" and "Equals" and the use
> of the "eq" and "=" symbols.
> 
> The fact that == or any other function available in C was around or not
> at the time is not relevant.  FilePro determined how it would act and
> use these symbols.  This was defined by the filePro application and
> presented to the end user as such.  When I typed "5 eq ab" on an IF
> line, filePro parsed that and made the determined interpretation of that
> statement resulting in a TRUE or FALSE.  The rules for this were clearly
> defined by filePro.
> 
> I think this has turned in to a comparison of languages and none of this
> is important to how these functions are defined to behave IN FILEPRO.
> 
> In the last 25 years, computer languages have developed and added much
> nuance to logic and functions to enhance what can be done.  All to make
> things clearer and easier to program.  The early version of filePro had
> 10 commands, but the logic to determine the relationship between
> expressions has not change one bit.
> 
> The rules were taken from mathematics and they remain consistent and
> correct.  Just because other languages have added meaning or used the
> symbols differently for relationships does not make filePro wrong.  As I
> see it, they added meaning to some symbols to offer more levels of
> comparison.
> 
> Filepro added the COMPARE() function, that will compare two strings and
> will be true only if length and case are the same. This is what some are
> trying to make the "eq" operand determine.
> 
> Mathematics is a set of rules.  Once the rules are determined and
> accepted, the mathematics can be developed to determine other "truths".
> 
> Computer languages are the same, filePro defined the rules and
> assumptions, you build your programming from there.  I realize some
> programmers would prefer to have the rules determined by other languages
> or systems, but that does not change the fact that filepro has already
> defined the rules, long ago, that would be basic to filePro.  I find
> them to work well and don't see how they seem to offend so many.  I
> don't see any conflict with mathematical standards of logic for
> equivalence and equality.
> 
> Well I have made my argument.  I do not suggest that any other language
> is incorrect or that any person posting is wrong.  We are just seeing
> the rules a little differently.  I apologized for the rant.  Can't help
> myself today.
> 
> Have an "equivalently" fabulous day.
> 
> Nancy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Nancy Palmquist 		MOS & filePro Training Available
> Virtual Software Systems	Web Based Training and Consulting
> PHONE: (412) 835-9417		   Web site:  http://www.vss3.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list