![]() |
|
good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Discipulus, rdfield, you are both correct: This is a problem with long integers. What I don't understand is: Why are the integers correctly remembered, correctly displayed, but incorrectly compared to 0 ? Because, let's face it, it's the core of the problem: When it's a "small" number, it is correctly evaluated as positive, negative, or null. When it is a "big" number, then there may be problems in evaluating the sign. Much like if some bit from the big number was used as a sign bit, or whatever, where the real good practice would merely be to check the sign at the start of the number string... I mean, if it starts with a "+" or a digit, then it's positive. If it starts with a "-", it's negative. We keep that "sign", unless all digits are 0 -> in which case it is merely null. Did I miss something, there ? In reply to Re^6: Problem with a sort result: weird subtraction behaviour?
by kzwix
|
|