Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: TeX and Pascal [was Re: The joy of FORTRAN]
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 09:08:21 -0700
Organization: AfarCommunications Inc
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vdbu1m$1q55n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
 <5mqdnZuGq4lgwm_7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vcub5c$36h63$1@dont-email.me> <1r0e6u9.1tubjrt1kapeluN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
 <vcuib9$37rge$5@dont-email.me> <vcvuhh$3hroa$2@dont-email.me>
 <llhieuF8ej2U2@mid.individual.net> <20240925083451.00003205@gmail.com>
 <Pascal-20240925164718@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <mdd4j63pmo1.fsf_-_@panix5.panix.com>
 <oJ-cnQSrLZDYdGX7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vdatb6$1l4ch$8@dont-email.me> <vdauah$1lq1u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdbm8a$1oso0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 18:08:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="61c22542540bcfc9e89e50d5b5a5e0f4";
	logging-data="1905847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KDJgXx/Hr3bMNMXGnpHVNcN+nKL4wTCg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4lKsRlEm8Q8zREejd6DycsWB8wY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vdbm8a$1oso0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3054

On 29/09/2024 06:55, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 29/09/2024 00:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> All OO languages are in fact procedural.
>> The opposite of “procedural” is “functional”, not “OO”.
> 
> I need to do some reading. My understanding of the difference is clouded 
> by the fact that a subroutine is a procedure, but becomes a function if 
> it delivers a return value. (Yes I am that old).
> 
>> So what syntax *do* you want to use to join strings?
> 
> S3 = string_join(S1, S2) .. or .. S3 = S1.S2 .. or even S1 .= S2
> .. although the latter probably is hiding some ugly copying and 
> reallocation behind the scenes.
> 
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 07:50:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> I found that out in JavaScript where a comparison between a string  "1"
>>> and a number 1 failed on IE but worked on Firefox.
> 
>> That’s a misfeature of JavaScript, not a fault of OO generally. For
>> example, Python doesn’t have that misfeature. And neither does C++, while
>> we’re at it
> 
> Yeah, I like PERL a whole lot better than JavaScript. PERL has different 
> operators for string compare and numeric compare. So if $S1 is "1" and 
> $I1 is the number 1, you can test $I1 == $S1 (which casts the numeric 
> string into a number) or 
> $I1 eq $S1 (which casts the string into a number).

Of course I meant to type "which casts the number into a string".

> If $S1 = " 1", the numeric compare is true, but the string 
> compare fails.