mirror of
https://github.com/github/codeql.git
synced 2025-12-18 01:33:15 +01:00
60226801aa
A more in-depth attempt at changing terminology for GHU. I've only updated the non-language specific topics so far.
45 lines
1.6 KiB
ReStructuredText
45 lines
1.6 KiB
ReStructuredText
Understanding the difference between != and not(=)
|
|
==================================================
|
|
|
|
The two expressions:
|
|
|
|
#. ``a() != b()``
|
|
#. ``not(a() = b())``
|
|
|
|
look equivalent - so much so that inexperienced (and even experienced) programmers have been known to rewrite one as the other. However, they are not equivalent due to the quantifiers involved.
|
|
|
|
Thinking of ``a()`` and ``b()`` as sets of values, the first expression says that there is a pair of values (one from each side of the inequality) which are different.
|
|
|
|
**Using !=**
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
exists x, y | x in a() and y in b() | x != y
|
|
|
|
The second expression, however, says that it is *not* the case that there is a pair of values which are the *same* - that is, *all* pairs of values are different:
|
|
|
|
**Using not(=)**
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
not exists x, y | x in a() and y in b() | x = y
|
|
|
|
This is equivalent to: ``forall x, y | x in a() and y in b() | x != y``. The meaning is very different from the first expression.
|
|
|
|
Examples
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
``a() = {1, 2}`` and ``b() = {1}``:
|
|
|
|
#. ``a() != b()`` is true, because ``2 != 1``
|
|
#. ``a() = b()`` is true, because ``1 = 1``
|
|
#. Therefore\ ``: not(a() = b())`` is false - a different answer from the comparison ``a() != b()``
|
|
|
|
Similarly with ``a() = {}`` and ``b() = {1}``:
|
|
|
|
#. ``a() != b()`` is false, because there is no value in ``a()`` that is not equal to ``1``
|
|
#. ``a() = b()`` is also false, because there is no value in ``a()`` that is equal to ``1`` either
|
|
#. Therefore: ``not(a() = b())`` is true - again a different answer from the comparison ``a() != b()``
|
|
|
|
In summary, the QL expressions ``a() != b()`` and ``not(a() = b())`` may look similar, but their meaning is quite different.
|