On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 07/16/2011 08:59 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>
>> xor(true, false) == true
>> xor(true, false, true) == false
>> xor(true, false, true, false) == false
>>
>> Is this correct?
>
> Follows the usual semantics; cf.:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E
On 07/16/2011 08:59 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
xor(true, false) == true
xor(true, false, true) == false
xor(true, false, true, false) == false
Is this correct?
Follows the usual semantics; cf.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or#Associativity_and_commutativity
It would seem that semantic
On 2011-07-17, Matt Benson wrote:
>> ,
>> | It only evaluates to true if an odd number of nested conditions are true.
>> `
> So is this an accepted "kind of xor"?
Accepted by the original author (Steve IIRC), silently accepted by all
reviewers back then and in a way accepted as "that's w
ntainer would be
> required. "exactlyOneOf" or something similar?
I don't need it, personally, yet. Was working in Commons Lang,
noticed the discrepancy between oacl.BooleanUtils.xor() and Ant's xor
condition, and wanted to follow up.
br,
Matt
>
> Stefan
>
> --
On 2011-07-17, Matt Benson wrote:
> Currently each nested condition is xor'd against the cumulative result, thus:
> xor(true, false) == true
> xor(true, false, true) == false
> xor(true, false, true, false) == false
> Is this correct? It would seem that semantically an xor over multiple
> neste
Currently each nested condition is xor'd against the cumulative result, thus:
xor(true, false) == true
xor(true, false, true) == false
xor(true, false, true, false) == false
Is this correct? It would seem that semantically an xor over multiple
nested conditions should mean that exactly one value
