On 31-May-07, at 10:18 AM, Dennis Birch wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Norman Palardy <npalardy at great-white-software dot com> wrote:
>>
>> On 31-May-07, at 10:06 AM, Dennis Birch wrote:
>>> But it appears to me that it's a case of RB number constants being
>>> handled differently, which may be within the engineers' control.
>>
>> Since constants don't let us specify their exact type it could be
>> simply how promoting a the single to a double behaves
>>
>> They derive their type from the contents and so you can't say this
>> const is a double, this one a single, this one a Uint64
>
> But you could expect RB to offer consistent behavior between
> platforms.
I'd expect consistent behavior in lots of places
Try this one
Define a NUMBER constant on a window called constUint64
Set its value to &h8000000000000000
Note that the const editor will say it's a string but you need to
change it to number
Put this code in a button or something
const localConstUint64 = &h8000000000000000
dim i as Uint64 = &h8000000000000001
if i > constUint64 then
msgbox "module const ok"
else
msgbox "module const bug"
end if
if i > LocalConstUint64 then
msgbox "local const ok"
else
msgbox "local const bug"
end if
Both comparisons should result in i being larger than the const but
try it :)
<http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=zeagcgso>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|