PQOTD

[Rage]

Yep, but this is a workaround, not a best practice though.

~RaGE();

I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.

[Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter]

I do not like that change from C/C++...I mean the | and || changes... X|

I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)

[BobJanova]

There's actually some nice concise uses of

var result = DoSomething() && DoSomethingThatDependsOnIt();
var result = DoSomething() || HandleFailureCase();

It's even better in languages where you can use non-boolean types with the boolean operators.

[Keith Barrow]

Though Nish's and OG's examples will work, I think it is symantically better to do this:

bool more = ProcessFlyouts();
bool foo = ProcessCarrierAnimations();
more = more || foo;

Less terse code (normally bad) - but explicit in calling ProcessCarrierAnimations.

PB 369,783 wrote:

I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]

[PIEBALDconsult]

more |= ProcessCarrierAnimations(); ?

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Bassam Abdul Baki]

Marc Clifton wrote:

You should be able to glean what the programmer intends to happen from the code. :)

Riiiiiiiiiiight!!! :)

Web - BM - RSS - Math - LinkedIn

[Rage]

Let's say I have never seen these two lines of code, OK ?

~RaGE();

I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.

[Simon_Whale]

Have you been to QA lately? :laugh:

Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON

[Andy Brummer]

var more = more || initalizeMore(); is a common practice in javascript.

Curvature of the Mind now with 3D

[Forogar]

This isn't a change from C++. It works the same way for both operators. Doesn't it? Now I'm going to have to read up on it, dammit!

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

[Forogar]

Ouch! && Ouch! || Ouch!

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

[Pete OHanlon]

Now, I'm not going to look at the other answers before I post so I don't know if others have got it right, or if there are additional nuggets of information. If ProcessFlyouts returns true then the second test isn't carried out - it's a conditional OR statement. So, if you want ProcessCarrierAnimations to be evaluated, convert it to

more = more | ProcessCarrierAnimations();

[Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter]

You have to! Otherwise you may end up with some mess if updating C/C++ to C# (what I'm doing just now)...

I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)

[PIEBALDconsult]

"Eliminate needless local variables." :-D

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[PIEBALDconsult]

I never follow other peoples' rules. :cool:

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Forogar]

Nah! As long as it compiles...

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

[Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter]

Yeah! It compiles. After then you can rub your head to find where the bug is!

I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)

[Richard Andrew x64]

How about:

more &= ProcessCarrierAnimations();

The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.

[Jorgen Andersson]

Is it just me that would have done it as a oneliner?

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]

[PIEBALDconsult]

That could make setting a breakpoint on the second call difficult. :shrug:

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.