I am trying to write ANTLR grammar for reading JavaScript arithmetic operations.
Specifically, I want to support boolean values in arithmetic operations such as 0 + true = 1 and 0 + false = 0.
I have the following right now:
BOOLEAN: 'true'
| 'false';
How can I make 1 also mean "true", and "0" also mean false?
How to allow boolean values in arithmetic operations
By making BOOLEAN one possible alternative for your expression rule. In fact, this will already be the case if you wrote your grammar the normal way. Something like 0 + true is syntactically valid in virtually any language that supports infix operators (it'd be a type error in many languages, but still syntactically valid).
How can I make 1 also mean "true", and "0" also mean false?
By treating it as such in your type checking, code generation and/or evaluation code. The grammar doesn't specify what things mean - only what is and isn't syntactically valid and what the resulting parse tree will look like.
Related
Yes, I have read the previous extensive comments on this issue.
YDKJS, Types & Grammar, Chapter 2 says that using isNaN() is a bug, because of some internal consistency problems.
I use isNaN() in order to see whether using a variable in an arithmetic expression will give me an error.
The currently "approved" ES6 Number.isNaN() will tell me that it's OK to use a string which does not coerce to a number in a numeric expression. It seems to me that the subverts the whole purpose of using isNaN().
Why is this a good thing? I don't care about the formal consistency of the language - I just don't want my arithmetic expression to blow up.
Is there a practical situation where Number.isNaN() will prevent an error that window.isNaN() will not?
Example:
var a = 2 / "foo"; // is not a number,
var b = "foo"; // is not a number
var c = 2; // is a number
alert("a="+a+", window.isNaN(a)="+window.isNaN(a)+", Number.isNaN(a)="+Number.isNaN(a)+", isNaN(a)="+isNaN(a)); //true, true,true
alert("b="+b+", window.isNaN(b)="+window.isNaN(b)+", Number.isNaN(b)="+Number.isNaN(b)+", isNaN(b)="+isNaN(b)); //true, false, true
alert("c="+c+", window.isNaN(c)="+window.isNaN(c)+", Number.isNaN(c)="+Number.isNaN(c)+", isNaN(c)="+isNaN(c)); //false, false, false
I don't think it's perfectly good, but better than the global isNaN, the reason is because it only returns true when certain value is NaN. Unfortunately, Number.isNaN won't prevent wrong argument errors as it's not obviously a statement or special thing, it doesn't interpret passed expressions like / (division) or any other thing. That's it.
In JavaScript, variables are loosely typed, so the number 5 and the string "5" may both be treated as a number by several operators. However, is there a generic way to find out JavaScripts conversion abilites in at tunrime, or is it just the overloading of operators for several types that make the loose typing possible?
For example, given a variable a and a string containing a type name type_canditate, is there any way to ask JavaScript, if a may convert to type_candidate in a feasable manner, in contrast to the hard typing operators like instanceof? For example, "5" instanceof Number evaluates false, while Math.sin("5") is perfectly feasable. For numbers, one can obviuosly check if parseFloat(some_number) evaluates to NaN, but this is a special case for numbers.
So, is there any generic way of naming types, and check if some variable may convert to a given type in a useful manner?
There are three primitive data types in JavaScript: string, number and boolean.
Anything can be converted to a string or boolean:
All objects convert to true (except null, which becomes false - I only mention it here because typeof null gives object)
All objects have a built-in toString method which is called when converting to a string.
Converting a number to a string is done by giving the string representation of the number (ie. 5 becomes "5")
Numbers convert to boolean true, unless it's 0 which becomes false.
Converting to a number is a little trickier, but technically possible. If it can find a valid number, then it becomes that number. Otherwise, it becomes NaN.
So basically... any type can become any other type through casting in this way. The only time you have anything resembling an "error condition" is NaN.
Bill the Lizard stated the dangers and cons of using the equality operator (==) in this answer. However, little has been said about the undercover "evil twins", the >= and the <=.
0 >= '' // true
0 <= '' // true
'' >= 0 // true
'' <= 0 // true
Therefore, my questions are:
Should elements of different types be comparable by default?
1.1 If not, what should be the returned value? false? undefined? Bear in mind that if a >= b === false, this implies that a < b === true.
What could be done to avoid, in a practical way, odd cases as the ones in the example?
Since greater than (<) and less than (>) operators also do type conversion, are there any odd cases for them?
Should elements of different types be comparable by default?
This only matters if you are designing a language. In JavaScript, values of different types are comparable, and comparison follows certain rules. You have to be aware of them, but I don't see any point in discussing "what if the rules were different".
What could be done to avoid, in a practical way, odd cases as the ones
in the example?
Just avoid comparing values of different types, it doesn't make sense if most cases. The only situation where it's useful is comparing numeric strings with numbers. And in that case JavaScript behaves just as anyone would expect, no odd results.
Since greater than (<) and less than (>) operators
also do type conversion, are there any odd cases for them?
I'm sure there are, although I can't think of one right now. But why you think your examples are odd? You seem to understand that "" == 0 because of type conversion, so it's no wonder all the comparisons in your example return true, as they all include zero.
I know the rule:
If the two operands are not of the same type, JavaScript converts the operands then applies strict comparison. If either operand is a number or a boolean, the operands are converted to numbers if possible; else if either operand is a string, the other operand is converted to a string if possible.
So, if("true") passes but if("true" == true) fails because it is handle like if(NaN == 1).
I was wondering what the rational is behind this when one value is boolean. In other weak typed languages like php, this is handle this differently--if one value is a boolean, the other is converted to a boolean for comparisons (and not covert both to numbers as in javascript).
I'm assuming this choice was made for the == operator on careful consideration. Can anyone provide rational as to why this was the chosen functionality? Is there a common use case that this was chosen to address? I'm betting is wasn't just a mistake.
A remarkably quick response just in from Brendan Eich from the es-discuss#mozilla.org mailing list :
Consider Perl:
$ perl -e 'print 0 == "true";'
1
Ok, poor rationale -- but I created JS in May 1995, in the shadow of AWK, Perl 4, Python 1.2 (IIRC), TCL.
I should have paid more attention to AWK than Perl, given
$ awk 'END {print(0 == "0")}'
1D
$ awk 'END {print(0 == "")}'
0D
In some ways, JS's == operator splits the difference between Perl (where non-numeric strings such as "true" convert to 0) and AWK (where only "0" converts to 0) by converting to NaN. That way, at least, we have
js> 0 == ""
true
js> 0 == "true"
false
But the full truth is not that I was carefully emulating other languages. Rather, some Netscapers working to embed JS (then "Mocha") in a PHP-like server (LiveWire) wanted sloppy conversions, so programmers could match HTTP header strings (server side) or HTML form fields (client side) against, e.g., 404 and the like, without explicit coercion by the programmer.
But it was the 90s, I was in a tearing hurry, these ex-Borland Netscapers were persistent. So, as I said at Strange Loop last year, "I was an idiot! I gave them what they wanted!"
Implicit conversions are my biggest regret in JS's rushed design, bar none. Even including 'with'!
Does anyone know the exact reason the choice was made not to convert to boolean any value compared against a boolean in with the == operator?
The general idea is the narrower type should widen. Thus, true == 1 follows by projecting boolean {false, true} onto {0, 1}, as in C++.
But why not widen true to string, since the other operand in your example is "true"? Good question. The bias toward comparing strings as numbers if either operand is a number or a boolean stems from the HTTP header and numeric-string HTML form field use-cases. Not good reasons, again, but that's how JS "works" :-|.
You can see this in the ECMA-262 Edition 5.1 spec, 11.9.3 The Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm, steps 6 & 7 (read in light of steps 4 & 5):
4. If Type(x) is Number and Type(y) is String, return the result of the comparison x == ToNumber(y).
5. If Type(x) is String and Type(y) is Number, return the result of the comparison ToNumber(x) == y.
6. If Type(x) is Boolean, return the result of the comparison ToNumber(x) == y.
7. If Type(y) is Boolean, return the result of the comparison x == ToNumber(y).
This is all in a big "else clause where Type(x) and Type(y) for x == y are not the same.
Sorry there's no pearl (sic) of wisdom here. In addition to implicit conversions, == and != do not widen operands directly (no intermediate conversions) to the narrowest width that can hold the other operand without data loss. This narrowing string to number is just a botch.
If we fixed this botch, we'd still have:
0 == "0"
1 == "1"
true != "1"
false != "0"
But we would also have what your example wants:
true == "true"
false != ""
Per my calling the preference for number over string conversion a botch, we would not have true == "1" or false == "0", because that narrows from string to number. It's true the narrowing loses no bits, and one can widen 0 back to "0" and 1 back to "1", but I meant to illustrate what removing all number-over-string bias from the implicit conversion spec for == would do.
Would such a change break a lot of code on the web? I'd bet large sums it would.
Some take this botch, on top of any implicit conversion under the hood, as another reason to use === and !== always (because they never convert), and to utterly shun == and !=. Others disagree (especially when testing x == null, a one-operator way to test x === null || x === undefined).
Since the web grows mostly-compatibly until very old forms die off, we're stuck with == and !=, so I say it pays to learn what the sloppy equality operators do. Having done that, it seems to me one may use them where they win: when you know the operands are same-type, e.g.
typeof x == "function", etc.
x == null
And otherwise, use === and !==.
The bias toward comparing strings as numbers if either operand is a number or a boolean stems from the HTTP header and numeric-string HTML form field use-cases. Not good reasons, again, but that's how JS "works" :-|.
One more note: it could be argued that narrowing from string to number would be ok (as in, useful most of the time, and not unsafe) if any non-numeric, non-empty string-to-number implicit conversion attempt threw an exception.
Here's where another path-dependent bias in JS's design bit: no try/catch in JS1 or any ECMA-262 standard till ES3.
The lack of exception handling also meant undefined is imputed for missing obj.foo property get where obj has no such property. That is still biting back, perhaps as much as or more than implicit conversions bite ==. It is also the basis of web JS's winning "object detection" pattern, which fairly beats all other versioning schemes I've seen, especially a-priori ones based on explicit numbering and opt-in.
If only I'd taken the time to add an existential operator for object detection, so one could write
function emulateRequestAnimationFrame(...) {...}
if (!window.requestAnimationFrame?)
window.requestAnimationFrame = emulateRequestAnimationFrame;
IOW, if only I'd made window.noSuchProperty throw but window.noSuchProperty? evaluate to truthy or false (details still TBD, see the "fail-fast object destructuring" thread revival, the Nil idea).
I think some clarification is in order. According to the ECMA specification the entire expression for the if statement (the part within the parentheses) is converted to a boolean.
So imagine it like this:
if (ToBoolean("true" == true)) { //false
vs
if (ToBoolean("true")) { //true
I suppose the rational for why the ToBoolean coercion was added to the if expression was to ensure the expression always evaluates safely and correctly.
ToBoolean coerces a single value to a boolean. A comparison does not coerce each value to a boolean, that wouldn't make sense as you get some pretty strange results. It checks for equality, a different operation. As for why one value isn't converted to boolean when the other is one I am not sure, but try the Mozilla ECMA mailing list: https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
See:
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-9.2
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-12.5
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-11.9.1
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-11.9.3
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.7.1
I always thought that an if statement essentially compared it's argument similar to == true. However the following experiment in Firebug confirmed my worst fears—after writing Javascript for 15 years I still have no clue WTF is going on:
>>> " " == true
false
>>> if(" ") console.log("wtf")
wtf
My worldview is in shambles here. I could run some experiments to learn more, but even then I would be losing sleep for fear of browser quirks. Is this in a spec somewhere? Is it consistent cross-browser? Will I ever master javascript?
"If the two operands are not of the same type, JavaScript converts the operands then applies strict comparison. If either operand is a number or a boolean, the operands are converted to numbers; if either operand is a string, the other one is converted to a string."
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Operators/Comparison_Operators
So the first one does:
Number(" ")==Number(true)
While the second one is evaluated like this:
if(Boolean(" ")==true) console.log("wtf")
I am guessing that it is the first part that is a problem, not the second.
It probably does some weird casting (most likely, true is cast to a string instead of " " being cast to a boolean value.
What does FireBug return for Boolean(" ") ?
JavaScript can be quirky with things like this. Note that JavaScript has == but also ===. I would have thought that
" " == true
would be true, but
" " === true
would be false. The === operator doesn't do conversions; it checks if the value and the type on both sides of the operator are the same. The == does convert 'truthy' values to true and 'falsy' values to false.
This might be the answer - from JavaScript Comparison Operators (Mozilla documentation):
Equal (==)
If the two operands are not of the same type, JavaScript converts the operands then applies strict comparison. If either operand is a number or a boolean, the operands are converted to numbers; if either operand is a string, the other one is converted to a string
Highly recommended: Douglas Crockford on JavaScript.
Answer: aTruthyValue and true are not the same.
The semantic of the if statement is easy:
if(aTruthyValue) {
doThis
} else {
doThat
}
Now it's just the definition of what a truthy value is. A truthy value is, unfortunately, not something that is simply "== true" or "=== true".
ECMA-262 1.5
Setion 9.2 explains what values are truthy and which are not.
I recommend using === whenever possible, if only to avoid having existential crises.