Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Clawing my way out of operator overloading hell

by halley (Prior)
on Aug 01, 2003 at 15:09 UTC ( #279994=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Clawing my way out of operator overloading hell
in thread Clawing my way out of operator overloading hell

While the string eq operator can check for reference equivalence, the numeric == operator is preferred for this sort of check. It seems that not many people note this message in perlref:
    Using a string or number as a reference produces a symbolic reference, as explained above. Using a reference as a number produces an integer representing its storage location in memory. The only useful thing to be done with this is to compare two references numerically to see whether they refer to the same location.

By using the == instead of eq, you compare the addresses directly, rather than converting both operands to strings which happen to include identical character sequences.

They're functionally equivalent today, but I imagine someone may find some odd exploit involving stringified references. While I don't think Perl5 could possibly fix stringified references without breaking the semantic assumptions made in a metric buttload of scripts, it's good to get out of the habit of measuring proxied symptoms and instead use the proper operator.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

  • Comment on Re: Re: Clawing my way out of operator overloading hell

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Clawing my way out of operator overloading hell
by sauoq (Abbot) on Aug 01, 2003 at 17:28 UTC
    While the string eq operator can check for reference equivalence, the numeric == operator is preferred for this sort of check.

    Sure. It is much more efficient. I only intended to let the OP know that the code he is maintaining might be doing something useful without operator overloading. (It turns out that I guessed right.)

    By using the == instead of eq, you compare the addresses directly, rather than converting both operands to strings which happen to include identical character sequences.

    Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say stringified references just "happen to include identical character sequences." They include identical character sequences because the same code produces those characters from the same input data.

    They're functionally equivalent today, but I imagine someone may find some odd exploit involving stringified references.

    An exploit? I would love to hear more about how you think someone might accomplish that. :-)

    Yes, == is better than eq for checking reference equality. It's much faster. Use numerical comparison. Tell others to use numerical comparison. But, there is no reason to be paranoid about the construct. It isn't dangerous. It isn't deprecated. (afaik) It works fine; it's just slow.

    P.S. I can even think of one good reason to use it. What if you have overridden '0+' and want to check for reference equality rather than the equality of two objects' overridden numification?

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://279994]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (8)
As of 2019-03-21 14:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    How do you Carpe diem?





    Results (108 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?