AND and OR in Java

[hhhhhhhh]

Hi all brothers,

Please give me some idea how to use AND and OR in java.

Thanks

[JosAH]

Hi all brothers,

Please give me some idea how to use AND and OR in java.

Thanks

There are no such things as AND and OR in Java. There are &, &&, | and || instead
and they're binary operators.

The & and | operators operate on both any integral domain where they serve the
same purpose as 'bitwise-and' and 'bitwise-or' operators and the boolean domain.

The && and || operators operate on just the boolean domain and don't evaluate
the right operand when the answer can be 'concluded' from the left operand.

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

Hi all brothers,

Please give me some idea how to use AND and OR in java.

Thanks

Those are neither Java keywords nor valid operators.
If you want the correct Java operators for AND and OR then just google them or refer to a Java textbook.

[r035198x]

There are no such things as AND and OR in Java. There are &, &&, | and || instead
and they're binary operators.

The & and | operators operate on both any integral domain where they serve the
same purpose as 'bitwise-and' and 'bitwise-or' operators and the boolean domain.

The && and || operators operate on just the boolean domain and don't evaluate
the right operand when the answer can be 'concluded' from the left operand.

kind regards,

Jos

My, my. What's the occasion?

[JosAH]

My, my. What's the occasion?

What occasion? I was playing with my RPL language and realized that doubling
the int and boolean domains would never have been necessary if there were no
boolean domain (as in C). My fingers were still in their typing mode so that's why. ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

What occasion? I was playing with my RPL language and realized that doubling
the int and boolean domains would never have been necessary if there were no
boolean domain (as in C). My fingers were still in their typing mode so that's why. ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

So are you going to go the C no boolean domain way?

[JosAH]

So are you going to go the C no boolean domain way?

yup, every other domain can double as a boolean domain if you just simply
define it; e.g. the String "foo" can be defined as true because the String contains
characters; the String "" can be defined to be false because it doesn't contain any
characters. It's just a matter of definition that takes away all those explicit conversion
code. Gosling eat your heart out ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

yup, every other domain can double as a boolean domain if you just simply
define it; e.g. the String "foo" can be defined as true because the String contains
characters; the String "" can be defined to be false because it doesn't contain any
characters. It's just a matter of definition that takes away all those explicit conversion
code. Gosling eat your heart out ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

What will be the size of a boolean then?

[JosAH]

What will be the size of a boolean then?

For an explicit boolean value (if needed) the domain and size are ints 0 and 1 for
false and true respectively.

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

For an explicit boolean value (if needed) the domain and size are ints 0 and 1 for
false and true respectively.

kind regards,

Jos

So

if("test") {
     }

would be allowed?
and

boolean foo = "test";

would have a value of 0?

[JosAH]

So

if("test") {
     }

would be allowed?
and

boolean foo = "test";

would have a value of 0?

1) The syntax in RPL is:

if "foo" then ... # true, so the then branch is evaluated
 

2) You'd just do:

'foo "test" =
if foo then ... # true, so the then branch is evaluated
 

Read all about it in my 'tips of the weeks' article parts! ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

1) The syntax in RPL is:

if "foo" then ... # true, so the then branch is evaluated
 

2) You'd just do:

'foo "test" =
if foo then ... # true, so the then branch is evaluated
 

Read all about it in my 'tips of the weeks' article parts! ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

Hey, I'm still getting to grips with that syntax. It's hard enough switching between Java, C++, and C#. Now RPL. I'm really beginning to get it though. Very soon I'll be able to contribute.

[JosAH]

Hey, I'm still getting to grips with that syntax. It's hard enough switching between Java, C++, and C#. Now RPL. I'm really beginning to get it though. Very soon I'll be able to contribute.

Good; it's great to know that at least two persons are interested (I'm interested
myself too ;-) RPL is very much unlike the imperative way of thinking, OO or not.

RPL simply 'evaluates' objects from left to right; always. Even language elements
(there are no language elements, just RPL objects) can be objects that can be
evaluated and diddled with. e.g.

'baz 'if then "foo" else "bar" end =
42 baz
 

The result is "foo"

kind regards,

Jos

[r035198x]

Good; it's great to know that at least two persons are interested (I'm interested
myself too ;-) RPL is very much unlike the imperative way of thinking, OO or not.

RPL simply 'evaluates' objects from left to right; always. Even language elements
(there are no language elements, just RPL objects) can be objects that can be
evaluated and diddled with. e.g.

'baz 'if then "foo" else "bar" end =
42 baz
 

The result is "foo"

kind regards,

Jos

That's the part I'm still coming to grips with. I intend to dissect it all this weekend and see if I can come up with something about that linear algebra support.

[JosAH]

That's the part I'm still coming to grips with. I intend to dissect it all this weekend and see if I can come up with something about that linear algebra support.

RPL evaluates everything from left to right; no exception to the rule, so in Java:
"a= b" has its equivalent in RPL as "a b =" but since everything is *evaluated*
you have to block evaluation in RPL as "'a 'b =".

As I wrote: Read all about it in the RPL article series! ;-)

kind regards,

Jos