1. value() misleading?
-- Some time ago I asked if in certain cases value() returns
-- misleading results. Run the following program and let me know
-- your opinion about the results.
-- Thanks, Rolf
--
include get.e
sequence s, sval
s = {}
for i = 1 to 9 do -- define 9 + 9 strings
s = append(s, (48+i) & (96+i))
end for
for i = 1 to 9 do
s = append(s, (48+i) & (64+i))
end for
puts(1,"Look at these value()-returns:\n\n")
for i = 1 to 18 do
sval = value(s[i]) -- call value()
puts(1,"value(\""&s[i]&"\"): ")
if sval[1] = GET_FAIL then -- check error condition
printf(1,"{GET_FAIL,%d}", sval[2]) -- print result
elsif sval[1] = GET_SUCCESS then -- check error condition
printf(1,"{GET_SUCCESS,%d}", {sval[2]}) -- print result
else
printf(1,"{UNKNOWN,%d}", {sval[2]}) -- should never happen
end if
puts(1,"\n")
end for
puts(1,"\n\nI guess, ALL value-returns should give {GET_FAIL,0} for
ALL \n")
puts(1,"strings do NOT represent legaly written numbers!\n")
puts(1,"Any remarks or comments?\n Rolf\n")
2. Re: value() misleading?
Rolf wrote:
>-- Some time ago I asked if in certain cases value() returns
>-- misleading results. Run the following program <snip>
I have always felt uncomfortable with this one too. But when I moaned
about it, two or three years ago, Rob's answer was, more or less,
that's the way he meant it to be!
(A bit of irony: last time I tried to come up with something better I
finished helping Rob make the existing beast go much faster...)
In fact I would prefer a slightly different scheme, a function that
would attempt to evaluate the whole string, and return either a
sequence of converted values (objects), or just an integer,
effectively the string index at which the conversion failed.
