Can (a== 1 && a ==2 && a==3) ever evaluate to true

Question

Moderator note: Please resist the urge to edit the code or remove this notice. The pattern of whitespace may be part of the question and therefore should not be tampered with unnecessarily. If you are in the "whitespace is insignificant" camp, you should be able to accept the code as is.

Is it ever possible that (a== 1 && a ==2 && a==3) could evaluate to true in JavaScript?

This is an interview question asked by a major tech company. It happened two weeks back, but I'm still trying to find the answer. I know we never write such code in our day-to-day job, but I'm curious.

Answer 1

JavaScript

a == a +1

In JavaScript, there are no integers but only Numbers, which are implemented as double precision floating point numbers.

It means that if a Number a is large enough, it can be considered equal to three consecutive integers:

a = 100000000000000000
if (a == a+1 && a == a+2 && a == a+3){
  console.log("Precision loss!");
}

True, it's not exactly what the interviewer asked (it doesn't work with a=0), but it doesn't involve any trick with hidden functions or operator overloading.

Other languages

For reference, there are a==1 && a==2 && a==3 solutions in Ruby and Python. With a slight modification, it's also possible in Java.

Ruby

With a custom ==:

class A
  def ==(o)
    true
  end
end

a = A.new

if a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3
  puts "Don't do this!"
end

Or an increasing a:

def a
  @a ||= 0
  @a += 1
end

if a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3
  puts "Don't do this!"
end

Python

class A:
    def __eq__(self, who_cares):
        return True
a = A()

if a == 1 and a == 2 and a == 3:
    print("Don't do that!")

Java

It's possible to modify Java Integer cache:

package stackoverflow;

import java.lang.reflect.Field;

public class IntegerMess
{
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        Field valueField = Integer.class.getDeclaredField("value");
        valueField.setAccessible(true);
        valueField.setInt(1, valueField.getInt(42));
        valueField.setInt(2, valueField.getInt(42));
        valueField.setInt(3, valueField.getInt(42));
        valueField.setAccessible(false);

        Integer a = 42;

        if (a.equals(1) && a.equals(2) && a.equals(3)) {
            System.out.println("Bad idea.");
        }
    }
}

Answer 2

If you ever get such an interview question (or notice some equally unexpected behavior in your code) think about what kind of things could possibly cause a behavior that looks impossible at first glance:

1. Encoding: In this case the variable you are looking at is not the one you think it is. This can happen if you intentionally mess around with Unicode using homoglyphs or space characters to make the name of a variable look like another one, but encoding issues can also be introduced accidentally, e.g. when copying & pasting code from the Web that contains unexpected Unicode code points (e.g. because a content management system did some "auto-formatting" such as replacing fl with Unicode 'LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FL' (U+FB02)).

2. Race conditions: A race-condition might occur, i.e. a situation where code is not executing in the sequence expected by the developer. Race conditions often happen in multi-threaded code, but multiple threads are not a requirement for race conditions to be possible – asynchronicity is sufficient (and don't get confused, async does not mean multiple threads are used under the hood).

   Note that therefore JavaScript is also not free from race conditions just because it is single-threaded. See here for a simple single-threaded – but async – example. In the context of an single statement the race condition however would be rather hard to hit in JavaScript.

   JavaScript with web workers is a bit different, as you can have multiple threads. @mehulmpt has shown us a great proof-of-concept using web workers.

3. Side-effects: A side-effect of the equality comparison operation (which doesn't have to be as obvious as in the examples here, often side-effects are very subtle).

These kind of issues can appear in many programming languages, not only JavaScript, so we aren't seeing one of the classical JavaScript WTFs here¹.

Of course, the interview question and the samples here all look very contrived. But they are a good reminder that:

• Side-effects can get really nasty and that a well-designed program should be free from unwanted side-effects.
• Multi-threading and mutable state can be problematic.
• Not doing character encoding and string processing right can lead to nasty bugs.

_{¹ For example, you can find an example in a totally different programming language (C#) exhibiting a side-effect (an obvious one) here.}

Answer 3

Here's another variation, using an array to pop off whatever values you want.

const a = {
  n: [3,2,1],
  toString: function () {
    return a.n.pop();
  }
}

if(a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3) {
  console.log('Yes');
}

Answer 4

Alternatively, you could use a class for it and an instance for the check.

function A() {
    var value = 0;
    this.valueOf = function () { return ++value; };
}

var a = new A;

if (a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3) {
    console.log('bingo!');
}

EDIT

Using ES6 classes it would look like this

class A {
  constructor() {
    this.value = 0;
    this.valueOf();
  }
  valueOf() {
    return this.value++;
  };
}

let a = new A;

if (a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3) {
  console.log('bingo!');
}

Answer 5

This is possible in case of variable a being accessed by, say 2 web workers through a SharedArrayBuffer as well as some main script. The possibility is low, but it is possible that when the code is compiled to machine code, the web workers update the variable a just in time so the conditions a==1, a==2 and a==3 are satisfied.

This can be an example of race condition in multi-threaded environment provided by web workers and SharedArrayBuffer in JavaScript.

Here is the basic implementation of above:

main.js

// Main Thread

const worker = new Worker('worker.js')
const modifiers = [new Worker('modifier.js'), new Worker('modifier.js')] // Let's use 2 workers
const sab = new SharedArrayBuffer(1)

modifiers.forEach(m => m.postMessage(sab))
worker.postMessage(sab)

worker.js

let array

Object.defineProperty(self, 'a', {
  get() {
    return array[0]
  }
});

addEventListener('message', ({data}) => {
    array = new Uint8Array(data)
    let count = 0
    do {
        var res = a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3
        ++count
    } while(res == false) // just for clarity. !res is fine
    console.log(`It happened after ${count} iterations`)
    console.log('You should\'ve never seen this')
})

modifier.js

addEventListener('message' , ({data}) => {
    setInterval( () => {
        new Uint8Array(data)[0] = Math.floor(Math.random()*3) + 1
    })
})

On my MacBook Air, it happens after around 10 billion iterations on the first attempt:

Second attempt:

As I said, the chances will be low, but given enough time, it'll hit the condition.

Tip: If it takes too long on your system. Try only a == 1 && a == 2 and change Math.random()*3 to Math.random()*2. Adding more and more to list drops the chance of hitting.

Answer 6

By overriding valueOf in a class declaration, it can be done:

class Thing {
    constructor() {
        this.value = 1;
    }

    valueOf() {
        return this.value++;
    }
}

const a = new Thing();

if(a == 1 && a == 2 && a == 3) {
    console.log(a);
}

What happens is that valueOf is called in each comparison operator. On the first one, a will equal 1, on the second, a will equal 2, and so on and so forth, because each time valueOf is called, the value of a is incremented.

Therefore the console.log will fire and output (in my terminal anyways) Thing: { value: 4}, indicating the conditional was true.