I agree. Something that ought to work... well, ought to! I think I have dodged
the bullet by using a personal development policy where I avoid wherever I can
the use of a not equal comparison. I always use not (a = b). I forget why I
developed this method, but now I see the problem you are havin
On 01/12/2012 20:09, Robert Sneidar wrote:
Can't you use not (aArray1 = aArray2)?
Bob
Yes, you can *if* you know you need to do that :-)
I refuse to say how many hours I spent debugging to get to the point
where I knew this was the problem. You suspect the likely things first
(i.e. that I h
Can't you use not (aArray1 = aArray2)?
Bob
On Nov 28, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
> You can compare two arrays for being equal - but you can't compare them for
> being unequal !
>
> As the dictionary says (under the "=" operator), you can compare two arrays,
> and it will check th
Alex Tweedly wrote:
You can compare two arrays for being equal - but you can't compare them
for being unequal !
I'll bet this is just a byproduct of the parser's current complexity,
one that hopefully they'll extend for completeness.
Historically, all comparison operators treated arrays as
You can compare two arrays for being equal - but you can't compare them
for being unequal !
As the dictionary says (under the "=" operator), you can compare two
arrays, and it will check that the number of keys is the same, and then
that each element is the same - therefore it works just like
