Question about checks for min and max values

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 03:38:17PM -0400, Nancy Palmquist wrote:
> 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.

Please, Nancy.  Enough with the red herrings.

I'm not *asserting* that it's *syntax* has to be the same.

I'm discussing *semantics*: what "equals" *means*.

> 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.

Yes, and it's confusing, since it has nothing to do with "what equals
means".

> 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.

Yes.

Alas, they defined "equals" to mean something other than what every
other programming language (as well as common mathematics) defines it
to mean, which is the sole point that Mark and I are debating.

> 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.

Yes, actually, it is.

If you're going to design a programming language, it is incumbent on
you *not* to take semantic tokens already in use in other languages,
and *define them to mean something different*.  You do so, as the
current owners of filePro likely realize, at your own peril.

> 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.

Yep, it's been counterintuitive to programmers from other milieux since
day one.

> The rules were taken from mathematics and they remain consistent and 
> correct.

Nope.  But I'm not going to repeat myself.  How filepro's 'eq'
differs from the algebraic and string equals operator in other
languages is something I've explained about 5 times on this thread so
far.

>            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.

Ok, we're at the "whatever" stage, now.

> 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.

Yup: we want "equal to" to mean "equal to".

> Mathematics is a set of rules.  Once the rules are determined and 
> accepted, the mathematics can be developed to determine other "truths".

Correct.

> Computer languages are the same, filePro defined the rules and 
> assumptions, you build your programming from there.

"...defined" *it's* rules and assumptions, which differ markedly in
many ways from those of other extant languages at the time it was
designed.  You keep trying to give filePro pride of place on this
topic, and it simply isn't old enough for that.

>                                                      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.

Probably, that's because you don't *program* in anything else.

> 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.

<chuckle>

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

      "...the rough cannot be mean and the love cannot be true, and that's
      as wise as I can get at 10 o'clock in the morning."
      	-- Bill Shatner, on being an anti-hero.