Today's entry for the "kill it with fire" list

englebart

just add this code before the first if statement:

if (flags[0] == TRUE) flags[0] = true;
if (flags[1] == TRUE) flags[1] = true;
if (flags[0] == FALSE) flags[0] = false;
if (flags[1] == FALSE) flags[1] = false;

Then you can trust !(not), && and || for the rest of the checks. Or better yet, with 2 Booleans, there are only four possible states, so normalize and then turn it into a switch statement with 0-3.

if (flags\[0\] == TRUE) flags\[0\] = true;
if (flags\[1\] == TRUE) flags\[1\] = true;
if (flags\[0\] == FALSE) flags\[0\] = false;
if (flags\[1\] == FALSE) flags\[1\] = false;
int state;
if (flags\[0\]) 
    state = 1
else 
    state = 0;
if (flags\[1\]) state += 2;
switch (state) {case 0-3:...}

Gary Wheeler

My gastrointestinal tract just inverted itself... X|

Software Zen: delete this;

Paulo_JCG

Is it possible we're talking about Quantum bool ????

Paulo Gomes Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight. —Bill Gates Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. —Albert Einstein

Gary Wheeler

Only this[^] knows.

Software Zen: delete this;

S Mercurio

Maybe it's an existential program looking for the meaning of truth and it couldn't get a hold of Stephen Colbert.

englebart

Even worse: If the //... code that initializes the flags array really assigns those values into it, then it looks like the original code does not even consider these cases: x == true && y == TRUE. 2 variables with 4 possible values each means there should be 16 possible states. Normalizing the values reduces it to 2 variables with 2 possible values which gives 4 states. If true vs TRUE produce different outcomes, then God bless you and convert the "bools" into an enum. Consider creating a multidimensional array where the indexes are your "flags" and you initialize each array element to be the correct answer for that combination of states.

DSewhuk

might get corrupted to equal, say 42. Code that didn't explicitly check consistently for "==true" would take the wrong path. if(flags[x]) would be true, if(flags[x]==true) would be false. Then you also get the VB true, which is -1!

Nathan Minier

To quote my "favorite comment":

#define TRUE FALSE
//Happy debugging suckers

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

Super Lloyd

what if var TRUE = false; hey!? I betcha didn't think of it, did ya?! :omg: ;P

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

Gary Wheeler

This is C++, fortunately.

Software Zen: delete this;

Super Lloyd

well, you know #undef TRUE #define TRUE 0

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

This could make sense in a multithreaded situation, but somehow I've a feeling that's not what you're dealing with...

#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

Gary Wheeler

While this code was in fact multithreaded, that had nothing to do with the sloppy way the logic was coded. I've had very few cases where comparing a bool variable to a constant made more sense algorithmically than just using the variable as-is. The second part comparing the variable to the Windows DWORD constant TRUE is just plain stupid. It works, but that's no credit.

Software Zen: delete this;