PQOTD

[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

[BobJanova]

That is pretty close to what I said, although that was admittedly technically wrong. (I understand how || works but apparently failed in the challenge of writing English!) "Not even close" would be "it returns banana or grapefruit depending on the wolf".

[James Curran]

>> I do not like that change from C/C++...I mean the | and || changes... Exactly, what changes are those? I've used C# for 10 ten years, and C/C++ for the ten years before that, and have noticed no differences in the handling of logical operators.

Truth, James

[RichardInToronto]

My bet is that ProcessCarrierAnimations isn't executed if ProcessFlyouts returns true. If ProcessCarrierAnimations should still be called, you could remove one of the "vertical bars", changing the "short-circuit" OR into a regular logical-OR. Richard

[patbob]

Without further information, it is obvious that the programmer intended ProcessCarrierAnimations() to only be called if ProcessFlyouts() returns false. I'm with OriginalGriff on this..

ProcessCarrierAnimations() || more;

This is clearly the better way to express intent that using a bitwise OR. Unless there are tests like this all over the code done with bitwise ORs, using one here requires the next programmer to notice you did something atypical here in a fairly subtle way, which means its a maintenance hazard, which in my book is part of the definition of poor coding.

We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.

[Fernando Takeshi Sato]

hhhmmm...I never thought of bitwise operators as being the 'regular' ones; quite the contrary, actually.

[Member_5893260]

It failed to run ProcessCarrierAnimations because more was already true, and thus the evaluator short-circuited. You want something like this:

bool more=ProcessFlyouts();
bool more2=ProcessCarrierAnimations();
more = more || more2;

[User 10244914]

if(!ProcessFlyouts()) { ProcessCarrierAnimations() }