Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

It seems I am always learning something new about Perl. Today while debugging some graph navigation code I discovered something that surprised me a bit. I was naively using eq to see if we had visited a graph node before, but for some reason my code was insisting that we had already visited a node that I knew we hadn't visited before. It turned out that the reason for this confusing behavior was that qr{someregex} eq '(?-xism:someregex)' was returning true. For example, the following code:

use strict; use warnings; my $s='(?-xism:a)'; my $re=qr{a}; # regex and string are clearly different ref types print "-------Type------------\n"; print "ref $re (regex) is 'Regexp': " , (ref($re) eq 'Regexp' ?'true':'false'), "\n"; print "ref $s (string) is '': " , (ref($s) eq '' ?'true':'false'), "\n"; print "ref $s (string) is not 'Regexp': " , (ref($s) ne 'Regexp' ?'true':'false'), "\n"; # so why are they equal? print "-------Equality--------\n"; print "comparing literals: qr{a} eq '(?-xism:a)': " , (qr{a} eq '(?-xism:a)'?'true':'false'), "\n"; print "comparing variables: regex eq $s (string): " , ($s eq $re?'true':'false'), "\n";

prints

-------Type------------ ref (?-xism:a) (regex) is 'Regexp': true ref (?-xism:a) (string) is '': true ref (?-xism:a) (string) is not 'Regexp': true -------Equality-------- comparing literals: qr{a} eq '(?-xism:a)': true comparing variables: regex eq (?-xism:a) (string): true

I'm used to eq comparing numbers to strings - Perl considers them both to be scalars, but here Perl was considering two things that were clearly different types as "equal" - one a reference to a regex and the other a string. So my questions are:

  • For what other pairings of data types does eq ignore type?
  • Is there a way to override this so that things belonging to different data types are always not equal? Or is the rather verbose (ref($x) eq ref($y)) and ($x eq $y) the only way to do this?
  • I know there is a way to overload operators but I was under the impression that one had to "use overload" to empower it. Is that wrong? If so, how can I detect overloaded operators?
  • Is the ability to overload operators in any way connected to this behavior of eq? If not, how should I understand it?

Best, beth


In reply to What is the best way to compare variables so that different types are non-equal? by ELISHEVA

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (14)
    As of 2015-07-30 12:35 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









      Results (271 votes), past polls