PQOTD

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;

Nish Nishant

Heh :-)

Regards, Nish

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

James Curran

>> It will run either ProcessFlyouts, or ProcessCarrierAnimations, or neither, Um... Not even close. It will, unquestionably, run ProcessFlyouts. It may also run ProcessCarrierAnimations.

Truth, James

James Curran

The "early out" semantics of the logical operators (|| and &&) are the same for C#, C++, Java, and C, and have been well-specified since the First Edition of K&R C. How could the result possibly be unexpected?

Truth, James