boolean short circuit

[Michael Jørgensen]

Hi there,

Is there any difference between

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success &= SomeOtherFuncti on();

and

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success = success && SomeOtherFuncti on().

????

In the latter case I expect that SomeOtherFuncti on() will not be called,
because of short circuit evaluation, but what about the first case?

-Michael.

[Artie Gold]

Michael Jørgensen wrote:

Hi there,

Is there any difference between

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success &= SomeOtherFuncti on();

and

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success = success && SomeOtherFuncti on().

????

In the latter case I expect that SomeOtherFuncti on() will not be called,
because of short circuit evaluation, but what about the first case?

Bitwise and is not short-circuiting.

HTH,
--ag

--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://goldsays.blogspot.com (new post 8/5)
http://www.cafepress.com/goldsays
"If you have nothing to hide, you're not trying!"

[usr.root]

someotherFuncti on() will always be called .
in the first case maybe the success has relationship with both the two
functions.
if they both return ture or both return false ,success is set with true
..other case it set false.

[Michael Jørgensen]

"Artie Gold" <ar*******@aust in.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3p******** ****@individual .net...

Michael Jørgensen wrote:

Hi there,

Is there any difference between

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success &= SomeOtherFuncti on();

and

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success = success && SomeOtherFuncti on().

????

In the latter case I expect that SomeOtherFuncti on() will not be called,
because of short circuit evaluation, but what about the first case?

Bitwise and is not short-circuiting.

Thanks.

I had overlooked that "&=" is "bitwise and". On ther other hand, there is no
"&&=" operator.

-Michael.

[Antonio Contreras]

Michael Jørgensen wrote:

Hi there,

Is there any difference between

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success &= SomeOtherFuncti on();

and

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success = success && SomeOtherFuncti on().

????

In the latter case I expect that SomeOtherFuncti on() will not be called,
because of short circuit evaluation, but what about the first case?

In the first case SomeOtherFuncti on() will allways be called. There are
other differences. 'Bitwise and' and 'logic and' are different
operators. If you want a logic and, you should use it. For example,
given the following declaration and assuming a 2's complement
representation.

int a = 2, b = 4;

a && b == 1 //both values represent true
a & b == 0 //0b00...0010 & 0b00...0100 = 0b00...0000

[Jack Klein]

On 21 Sep 2005 22:40:41 -0700, "us******@gmail .com"
<us******@gmail .com> wrote in comp.lang.c:

Do not reply without quoting. Here is the OP's question:

Michael Jørgensen wrote:

Hi there,

Is there any difference between

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success &= SomeOtherFuncti on();

and

bool success = SomeFunctionRet urningFalse();
success = success && SomeOtherFuncti on().

????

In the latter case I expect that SomeOtherFuncti on() will not be called,
because of short circuit evaluation, but what about the first case?

And here is your answer:
someotherFuncti on() will always be called .
in the first case maybe the success has relationship with both the two
functions.
if they both return ture or both return false ,success is set with true
.other case it set false.

As before, your answer is completely wrong. In both of the sample
cases, success is set to 0 unless BOTH of the functions return a
non-zero value.

In neither case is success set to 1 if both functions return zero.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html