1. Kanarie Question
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
Aug 13, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 14, 2005
Tommy,
It seems for var = "", that {var=*:}Var: '{var}'{:var} prints something! Is
it checking for the existence of "var," or if var actually has a non-null
value (the latter being the expected behavior)?
I don't deny that I might be doing something wrong. :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
2. Re: Kanarie Question
cklester wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> It seems for var = "", that {var=*:}Var: '{var}'{:var} prints something! Is
> it checking for the existence of "var," or if var actually has a non-null
> value (the latter being the expected behavior)?
>
> I don't deny that I might be doing something wrong. :)
You're not doing something wrong. KTS 1.7 is checking for the existence of
the field, and doesn't look at the value. I've uploaded 1.7b, where this bug
is fixed: a field where the value is an empty string, will no longer be
recognized as a valid field for {var=*:}
--
The Internet combines the excitement of typing
with the reliability of anonymous hearsay.
tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier
tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
3. Re: Kanarie Question
Tommy Carlier wrote:
> cklester wrote:
> > It seems for var = "", that {var=*:}Var: '{var}'{:var} prints something! Is
> > it checking for the existence of "var," or if var actually has a non-null
> > value (the latter being the expected behavior)?
> You're not doing something wrong. KTS 1.7 is checking for the existence of
> the field, and doesn't look at the value. I've uploaded 1.7b, where this bug
> is fixed: a field where the value is an empty string, will no longer be
> recognized as a valid field for {var=*:}
Righteous!!
Thanks Tommy. :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
