On 4/30/07, Mike Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, S'orlok Reaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- Mike Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, the rule of thumb is: "If there's a way, > > > someone has done it" > > > > > > I can't think of any particular reason why you would > > > want it to *not* > > > short circuit, but then, I'm not everyone in the > > > universe. > > > > > > The only one I can think of is side-effects. Something > > like: > > if (updateNPCs() || updateHero()) > > show message "An NPC or hero has hit a wall" > > end if > > > > ...where updateNPCs() moves each NPC left a step and > > returns true if the NPC hits a wall, and updateHero() > > moves the hero right a step and returns true if the > > hero hits a wall. > > > > I agree with you that if the feature exists, someone > > will want it. However, if ONLY short-circuiting is > > allowed, there are some easy workarounds. > > > > You can pull the code out of the if statement: > > b1 = updateNPCs() > > b2 = updateHero() > > if (b1 || b2) > > show message "An NPC or hero has hit a wall" > > end if > > > > If booleans can be coerced into integers, then you can > > string them together with |: > > if ((updateNPCs() | updateHero) != 0) > > show message "An NPC or hero has hit a wall" > > end if > > > > Replace || with && (and | with &) to get a similar > > non-short-circuited version of "and". > > > > This is ultimately a high-level decision for those > > more familiar with using the CE to make. My take is > > that short-circuiting everything is FAR less risky > > then allowing both, and that those who want to force > > evaluation of all parameters can easily make their own workaround. > > > > I'm not concerned with new scripts, writen with the short circuiting > in mind. But, if that script you mentioned was written in an old game, > then suddenly it doesn't work any more. > > Then again, || and && didn't even exist until I added them a while > ago, so... maybe it's not a big deal. > > -- > Mike Caron > Final Fantasy Q > http://finalfantasyq.com
We already have non shortcut evaluating versions. They're "and" and "or", and even though they're bitwise, everyone already uses them. The only problem is convincing people to use || and && instead of complaining about bugs because they don't understand the bitwise nature of "and" and "or". BTW, Hamsterspeak doesn't have a boolean datatype. TMC _______________________________________________ ohrrpgce mailing list ohrrpgce@lists.motherhamster.org http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
