Question about checks for min and max values

[Dick Burke]

Isn't the horse dead yet ???

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:15:34 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

>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.
>_______________________________________________
>Filepro-list mailing list
>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list


Dick Burke