On 17 November 2006 16:50, Stut wrote:
> > > Your basic misunderstanding is that === is the opposite of !==
> > > which it's not.
Complete rubbish -- it so absolutely is!
If $a===$b, then !($a===$b) is the same as $a!==$b, QED.
> > >(INTEGER === true) will always be false because the type
Ok, just to shut you all up, I managed to convince the OP earlier today,
but it never made it to the list...
Michael wrote:
At 02:58 AM 11/17/2006 , Stut wrote:
Michael wrote:
This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
I
At 2:54 AM -0700 11/17/06, Michael wrote:
Logic dictates that if something evaluates to NOT FALSE it must be TRUE.
Regardless of the type, regardless of the species, breed, flavor etc.
Not true -- it depends upon your reference/environment.
For example, NULL is neither true nor false in MySQL.
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:29 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:54 -0700, Michael wrote:
This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
I guess m
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:29 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:54 -0700, Michael wrote:
> >> This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
> >>
> >> Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
> >>
> >> I guess my only problem with the wa
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:54 -0700, Michael wrote:
>> This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
>>
>> Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
>>
>> I guess my only problem with the way the !== and === operators work in this
>> situation is this:
>>
>
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:54 -0700, Michael wrote:
> This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
>
> Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
>
> I guess my only problem with the way the !== and === operators work in this
> situation is this:
>
> Logic dictates that if somet
iday, November 17, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: Michael
> Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP] odd behavior of stripos() with === operator *LAST POST*
>
> On 17 November 2006 09:55, Michael wrote:
>
> > This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
> >
&g
On 17 November 2006 09:55, Michael wrote:
> This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
>
> Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
>
> I guess my only problem with the way the !== and ===
> operators work in this situation is this:
>
> Logic dictates that if something eva
This will be my last post on this thread of discussion.
Thanks to all who replied, I have it figured out.
I guess my only problem with the way the !== and === operators work in this
situation is this:
Logic dictates that if something evaluates to NOT FALSE it must be TRUE.
Regardless of the typ
Michael wrote:
I understand that the integer 0 and FALSE are different and I read the manual
so many times my head hurts, heh.
There are a few ways to work around this, probably more than I know. (according to the
documentation for strrpos() you could test the return from stripos() for is_bool
Please include the list in replies.
Michael wrote:
Why can't === realize that integer 0 means TRUE? whereas "" or a BOOLEAN false
does not? === evaluates integer 0 to FALSE :(
the !== operator recognizes the difference.
"(integer) 0 !== FALSE" is TRUE yet
"(integer) 0 === TRUE" is FALSE, bu
At 02:33 AM 11/17/2006 , Stut wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> I understand that the integer 0 and FALSE are different and I read the
>> manual so many times my head hurts, heh.
>>
>> There are a few ways to work around this, probably more than I know.
>> (according to the documentation for strrpos() yo
At 02:10 AM 11/17/2006 , Stut wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> Ok, picking gnits...
>> I should have said NOT true and NOT false at the same time.
>> As for the return of the integer 0..
>> The documentation indicates that the === and !== operators take this into
>> account in fact there is a specific ex
Michael wrote:
I'm not sure why the === operator does not handle this condition, since the
wonderful people at PHP foresaw the problem and fixed !== to handle it, I would
like to see the === fixed to handle this as well (if it is even possible, not
sure about how this is implemented??)
Th
Michael wrote:
Ok, picking gnits...
I should have said NOT true and NOT false at the same time.
As for the return of the integer 0..
The documentation indicates that the === and !== operators take this into
account in fact there is a specific example in the manual.
My point here is that if !==
At 12:24 AM 11/17/2006 , Michael wrote:
>HEllo all,
>
>After pulling my hair out for several hours trying to figure out why my code
>wasn't working I built this little test and ran it, the results are interesting
>in the least, and to me, surprising. It is possible that I have done something
>wrong
At 12:29 AM 11/17/2006 , you wrote:
>> I have underlined the output I am interested in...
>
>You did??? Where?
>
Ok, my bad, I sent the mail as plain text instead of styled :P
oops
>> How can the variable $found be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time?
>
>None of your output above indicates that
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 00:24 -0700, Michael wrote:
> HEllo all,
>
> After pulling my hair out for several hours trying to figure out why my code
> wasn't working I built this little test and ran it, the results are
> interesting
> in the least, and to me, surprising. It is possible that I have don
HEllo all,
After pulling my hair out for several hours trying to figure out why my code
wasn't working I built this little test and ran it, the results are interesting
in the least, and to me, surprising. It is possible that I have done something
wrong, but I checked and rechecked this in the docu
20 matches
Mail list logo
