[SR-Users] Consistency: -1 sometimes true, sometimes false

[Sebastian Damm]

Hi Daniel,

thanks für the explanation.

Best Regards,
Sebastian

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 23.08.17 10:36, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:34:03AM +0200, Sebastian Damm wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I printed out the content of the variable while debugging and it
>>> carried 1 or -1 depending on the outcome of allow_address(), so this
>>> basically seems to work.
>> Fair enough. Then it really is a case of evaluation rules being
>> different for variables than for inline function calls.
>>
> this kind of inconsistency it's a bag that had to be carried over the
> time due to initial version of the scripting language back in 2001-2002
> when it was decided how to evaluate the return codes for
> functions/routing blocks. At that moment there were no config variables,
> so it was considered to make it simple with:
>
>   - evaluate negative return to false
>   - evaluate 0 (zero) return to 'exit'
>   - evaluate positive return to true
>
> Starting with year like 2004-2005, with the addition of the variables,
> they were evaluated as integer numbers, more or less like in C. Boolean
> variables are not defined for config, so it is better (and more
> explicit) to evaluate PVs values against numbers.
>
> In short: boolean evaluation of a return code for a function is done
> differently that the evaluation of returned value by a variable.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com
> Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com