PQOTD

[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.

[Jorgen Andersson]

No big deal to change if necessary. :shrug: But I actually find it easier to read on one line.

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

[Ennis Ray Lynch Jr]

-|

Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch

[Ravi Bhavnani]

There's a risk that ProcessCarrierAnimations() may never be invoked, so the right thing (IMHO) would be to do something like this:

bool processFlyouts = ProcessFlyouts();
bool processCarrierAnimations = ProcessCarrierAnimations();
bool more = processFlyouts || processCarrierAnimations;

/ravi

My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

[dan sh]

Marc Clifton wrote:

bitwise operator

So boolean is foolish?

My CP workspace: Incredibly trivial and probably useless code samples[^]

[dan sh]

No it did not do anything unexpected. || operator uses short-circuit evaluation. I would assume the intent was to call ProcessCarrierAnimations only if more was false.

My CP workspace: Incredibly trivial and probably useless code samples[^]

[JimmyRopes]

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote:

It compiles. After then you someone else will can rub your their head to find where the bug is!

FTFY :-D

The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

[Chris Quinn]

It compiled?

========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================

[SortaCore]

It's my rule that people have to breathe (or die trying).

[Adam Tibi]

This is JavaScript style, the developer meant, if "more" is "undefined" then try the other option ProcessCarrierAnimations(). But obviously, this doesn't work in C#.

Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.

[Gary Wheeler]

Just to be contrary:

bool more = false;
if (ProcessFlyouts()) more = true;
if (ProcessCarrierAnimations()) more = true;

Software Zen: delete this;

[Gary Wheeler]

Yuck. One of my least favorite things when reading someone else's C/C++ code is when they mix logical and bit-wise operators in an expression. In this case, using a bit-wise operator on bool values just seems wrong.

Software Zen: delete this;

[Nish Nishant]

I agree, it's not something I'd use myself. I was only answering Marc's academic question :-)

Regards, Nish

---

Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Latest article: C++ 11 features in Visual C++ 2013 Preview

[Gary Wheeler]

I thought that was the case - your response just seemed rather unNish-like :laugh:.

Software Zen: delete this;