zero_type() & UNDEFINED (bug?)

It is logical to expect that if zero_type(X) == zero_type(Y) then X == Y.

I am curious as to where you got that idea. That implication never holds; a trivial counter example is zero_type(4) == zero_type(5), whereas 4 != 5. zero_type() tests a a property that `== does not see.

/ Johan Sundström (a hugging punishment!)

Previous text:

2003-01-22 02:35: Subject: zero_type() & UNDEFINED (bug?)

---

Hi all,

It is logical to expect that if

zero_type(X) == zero_type(Y)

then X == Y However:

0 == UNDEFINED

but

zero_type(0) != zero_type(UNDEFINED)

this means that checks like some_value == UNDEFINED will never work correctly if some_value is an integer zero.

Using zero_type() is not always convenient, at least not for readability...

I suspect that this wasn't intended to operate this way, or?

Regards, /Al

/ Brevbäraren