rfc:string_to_number_comparison

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
rfc:string_to_number_comparison [2020/07/02 08:00] nikicrfc:string_to_number_comparison [2020/07/15 08:28] nikic
Line 124: Line 124:
 </code> </code>
  
-A notable asymmetry under the new semantics is that ''%%"   42"%%'' and ''%%"42   "%%'' compare differently. In my opinion both of these should behave the same and ''%%42 == "42   "%%'' should return true. There is a draft RFC [[rfc:trailing_whitespace_numerics|to allow trailing whitespace]] in numeric strings, which would resolve this issue.+A notable asymmetry under the new semantics is that ''%%"   42"%%'' and ''%%"42   "%%'' compare differently. In my opinion both of these should behave the same and ''%%42 == "42   "%%'' should return true. There is an RFC that [[rfc:saner-numeric-strings|allows trailing whitespace]] in numeric strings (together with other changes), which would resolve this issue.
  
 ==== Precision ==== ==== Precision ====
rfc/string_to_number_comparison.txt · Last modified: 2020/07/31 12:55 by nikic