Comment # 18
on bug 11860
from João Valverde
(In reply to Guy Harris from comment #17)
> (In reply to João Valverde from comment #16)
> > It's a really nice idea and very promising but then '!>' is logically
> > different to '<='. Not a showstopper IMO.
>
> Yes, that's the whole *point* - it's *supposed* to be different, just as,
> with "<>" being the inverse of "=", "!=" is logically different from "<>".
> People seem to want, in addition to the current relational operators that
> test whether the relation is true for *at least one* instance of the field,
> relational operators that test whether the relation is true for *all*
> instances of the field; "!>" would test whether "{value-of-field} > {value}"
> is false, and thus whether "{value-of=field} <= {value}" is true, for *all*
> instances of {field}, whereas "<=" tests whether "{value-of-field} <=
> {value}" for *at least one* instance of {field}, just as "!=" would test
> whether "{value-of-field" = {value}" is false, and thus whether
> "{value-of-field} {is-not-equal-to} {value} is true, for *all* instances of
> {field}, whereas "<>" would test whether "{value-of-field} {is-not-equal-to}
> {value} for *at least one* instance of {field}.
Agreed. I like it. :) (I was just trying to anticipate one possible objection).
Thanks for the feedback.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.