Re: Boolean Range

[Armin Zingler]

"Matt MacDonald" <ma******@hotmail.comschrieb

Hi everyone,
Maybe I'm just discovering something late that everyone else knew
already, but it caught me off guard. In the past I could do an
expression like "If 1 <= x <= 10 Then ..." to see if x was in the
numeric range 1-10. So x = 5 would evaluate to True, whereas x = 0
would evaluate to False.

Can't repro this in VB6. Expression returns True in both cases.

Well now it seems that no matter what x
is, the statement evaluates to True.

One more reason why Option Strict should be switched On. The syntax is
not valid in VB.Net because "1 <= x" is a Boolean which is not defined
in conjunction with "<= 10". A Boolean can not be compared to an Integer
value using the "<=" operator.

VB6 did implicit conversions - wanted or not, without giving a warning
or an error. Option Strict makes you think about what has to happen.
AZ

[PvdG42]

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.dewrote in message
news:#$**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

"Matt MacDonald" <ma******@hotmail.comschrieb

>Hi everyone,
Maybe I'm just discovering something late that everyone else knew
already, but it caught me off guard. In the past I could do an
expression like "If 1 <= x <= 10 Then ..." to see if x was in the
numeric range 1-10. So x = 5 would evaluate to True, whereas x = 0
would evaluate to False.

Can't repro this in VB6. Expression returns True in both cases.

>Well now it seems that no matter what x
is, the statement evaluates to True.

One more reason why Option Strict should be switched On. The syntax is
not valid in VB.Net because "1 <= x" is a Boolean which is not defined
in conjunction with "<= 10". A Boolean can not be compared to an Integer
value using the "<=" operator.

VB6 did implicit conversions - wanted or not, without giving a warning
or an error. Option Strict makes you think about what has to happen.
AZ

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and unavoidable.
IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

>

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Peter,

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

I changed my mind a while ago about this. Somebody stated the point bellow
and I agree.

As Armin, You and I have seldom a problem with casting, can option strict
off be a good start point for somebody just starts learning programming,
programming is in my idea learning to use logic, not learning to know from
head every name of a property or/and method that there can be.

I know that my knowledge about teaching is most probably very low against
yours.
But I found it a good point.

Cor
"PvdG42" <pv**@toadstool.eduschreef in bericht
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.dewrote in message
news:#$**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>"Matt MacDonald" <ma******@hotmail.comschrieb

>>Hi everyone,
Maybe I'm just discovering something late that everyone else knew
already, but it caught me off guard. In the past I could do an
expression like "If 1 <= x <= 10 Then ..." to see if x was in the
numeric range 1-10. So x = 5 would evaluate to True, whereas x = 0
would evaluate to False.

Can't repro this in VB6. Expression returns True in both cases.

>>Well now it seems that no matter what x
is, the statement evaluates to True.

One more reason why Option Strict should be switched On. The syntax is
not valid in VB.Net because "1 <= x" is a Boolean which is not defined
in conjunction with "<= 10". A Boolean can not be compared to an Integer
value using the "<=" operator.

VB6 did implicit conversions - wanted or not, without giving a warning
or an error. Option Strict makes you think about what has to happen.
AZ

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

>>

[=?Utf-8?B?U3VydHVyWg==?=]

I'm pretty sure that

If 1 <= x <= 10 Then...

Has never been valid Microsoft BASIC syntax. If it ever worked it would not
have given the correct value because at best the (1 <= x) would return -1
(True) which would always be less than 10, so any value greater or equal to 1
would return True.

SELECT CASE x
CASE 1 TO 10
CASE ELSE
END SELECT

would give you what you want, or you could use
IF 1 <= X AND X <= 10 THEN...

--
David Streeter
Synchrotech Software
Sydney Australia
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" wrote:

Peter,

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

I changed my mind a while ago about this. Somebody stated the point bellow
and I agree.

As Armin, You and I have seldom a problem with casting, can option strict
off be a good start point for somebody just starts learning programming,
programming is in my idea learning to use logic, not learning to know from
head every name of a property or/and method that there can be.

I know that my knowledge about teaching is most probably very low against
yours.
But I found it a good point.

Cor
"PvdG42" <pv**@toadstool.eduschreef in bericht
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.dewrote in message
news:#$**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

"Matt MacDonald" <ma******@hotmail.comschrieb
Hi everyone,
Maybe I'm just discovering something late that everyone else knew
already, but it caught me off guard. In the past I could do an
expression like "If 1 <= x <= 10 Then ..." to see if x was in the
numeric range 1-10. So x = 5 would evaluate to True, whereas x = 0
would evaluate to False.

Can't repro this in VB6. Expression returns True in both cases.

Well now it seems that no matter what x
is, the statement evaluates to True.

One more reason why Option Strict should be switched On. The syntax is
not valid in VB.Net because "1 <= x" is a Boolean which is not defined
in conjunction with "<= 10". A Boolean can not be compared to an Integer
value using the "<=" operator.

VB6 did implicit conversions - wanted or not, without giving a warning
or an error. Option Strict makes you think about what has to happen.
AZ

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

>

[Matt MacDonald]

The more I think about this, it must have been back in my C++ (or maybe
earlier) days that I used this syntax. Like I said, it very seldom comes up
for me.

Thanks for all the input,
Matt

"SurturZ" <su*****@newsgroup.nospamwrote in message
news:C7**********************************@microsof t.com...

I'm pretty sure that

If 1 <= x <= 10 Then...

Has never been valid Microsoft BASIC syntax. If it ever worked it would
not
have given the correct value because at best the (1 <= x) would return -1
(True) which would always be less than 10, so any value greater or equal
to 1
would return True.

SELECT CASE x
CASE 1 TO 10
CASE ELSE
END SELECT

would give you what you want, or you could use
IF 1 <= X AND X <= 10 THEN...

--
David Streeter
Synchrotech Software
Sydney Australia
"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" wrote:

>Peter,

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.

I changed my mind a while ago about this. Somebody stated the point
bellow
and I agree.

As Armin, You and I have seldom a problem with casting, can option strict
off be a good start point for somebody just starts learning programming,
programming is in my idea learning to use logic, not learning to know
from
head every name of a property or/and method that there can be.

I know that my knowledge about teaching is most probably very low against
yours.
But I found it a good point.

Cor
"PvdG42" <pv**@toadstool.eduschreef in bericht
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.dewrote in message
news:#$**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
"Matt MacDonald" <ma******@hotmail.comschrieb
Hi everyone,
Maybe I'm just discovering something late that everyone else knew
already, but it caught me off guard. In the past I could do an
expression like "If 1 <= x <= 10 Then ..." to see if x was in the
numeric range 1-10. So x = 5 would evaluate to True, whereas x = 0
would evaluate to False.

Can't repro this in VB6. Expression returns True in both cases.

Well now it seems that no matter what x
is, the statement evaluates to True.

One more reason why Option Strict should be switched On. The syntax is
not valid in VB.Net because "1 <= x" is a Boolean which is not defined
in conjunction with "<= 10". A Boolean can not be compared to an
Integer
value using the "<=" operator.

VB6 did implicit conversions - wanted or not, without giving a warning
or an error. Option Strict makes you think about what has to happen.
AZ

Amen! I hope that someday Option Strict will be the default and
unavoidable. IMHO, code quality would improve measurably.