realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: String as Dictionary string

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: String as Dictionary string
From: Stefan Pantke <seaside dot ki at mac dot com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:33:50 +0100
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <r02010400-1037-093B13265A4511D9AA88000A95C8DD62 at [192 dot 168 dot 0 dot 25]> <6F299D04-5A53-11D9-863A-000A9585ABA2 at mac dot com> <5D1A5372-5A87-11D9-951A-000A95A9544A at shaw dot ca>

Am 30. Dez 2004 um 18:22 schrieb Norman Palardy:


On Dec 30, 2004, at 4:10 AM, Stefan Pantke wrote:


Am 30. Dez 2004 um 10:27 schrieb Jan Erik Moström:

I was going to use a dictionary to quickly looking up things but discovered
that the Dictionary class isn't case sensitive:

  msgBox "abc " +  x.value("abc")

gives "På dig", is there some easy way of getting the dictionary class to be
case sensitive?

I suppose, that this is a bug - and a quite ugly one too, if this behavior is
really not intended.
You should post a bug report.

Not a bug .... like the rest of string comparison in RB Dictionaries are not case sensitive.

Not a bug? That's strange and useless.

Having a case-sensitive String.= call and a Lowercase operation allows to define a case-insensitive String.= call. But the other way is more complicated and
most likely less inefficient than a lib call.

So, RS, what's the reason to implement String.= in such a totally uncommon
way?

Moreover: My intuition tells me that equality should be equality, nothing else ;-)

[BTW: Is this behavior documented?]

sp
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>