On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:46:12PM -0700, S'orlok Reaves 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
The old bitwise and/or will never be short-circuit, so you can also write non-short-circuiting conditionals like this: if (updateNPCs(), or, updateHero()) or if you are worried about bitwise side-effects if (updateNPCs() <> false, or, updateHero() <> false) --- Bob the Hamster _______________________________________________ ohrrpgce mailing list ohrrpgce@lists.motherhamster.org http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
