On 11/10/2010 05:26 AM, Andy Pugh wrote: > > <snippage> >> The >> statement "if(new_in&& new_in != last_in)" kind of baffles me. "foo&& >> foo" seems to be a programming trick called a short circuit? >> > This works because != has a higher precedence than&&. This might be a > sign of a programmer who implicitly knows this, or a programmer who > got lucky. I would tend to prefer if(new_in&& (new_in != last_in)) > because I don't know my operator precedences. Almost. In short circuit evaluations, " the second argument is only executed or evaluated if the first argument does not suffice to determine the value of the expression: when the first argument of the |AND| function evaluates to |false|, the overall value must be |false|; and when the first argument of the |OR| function evaluates to |true|, the overall value must be |true"|. (Stolen shamelessly from the wiki...) So, no real need for the second set of parentheses.
Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
