If statement not catching on conditions

[cmdolcet69]

I have the below if statement, that should catch if any of the
conditions are met.....however for some reasons if my
boolDSIFlushGap Reading = true and MuxClass.DSIVal ues.count =1 and my
muxclass.COM1Ac tive =1 it will not exit the program??? Why is that can
anyone help me

Urgent!!!!!!

If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False And muxClass.DSIVal ues.Count < 2 And
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1 Then
Exit Sub
End If

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Why are you not reading what everybody writes, but does not want to give you
the fish but tries to teach you how to catch the fish.

Here is the fish

\\\
If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False OrElse muxClass.DSIVal ues.Count < 2 OrElse
muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1 Then
Exit Sub
End If
///

This means that if any of this tests is true, then it will Exit Sub

Do they all have to be true then it is

\\\
If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False AndAlso muxClass.DSIVal ues.Count < 2
AndAlso
muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1 Then
Exit Sub
End If
///
Cor

"cmdolcet69 " <co************ @hotmail.comwro te in message
news:0f******** *************** ***********@m32 g2000hsf.google groups.com...

>I have the below if statement, that should catch if any of the
conditions are met.....however for some reasons if my
boolDSIFlushGap Reading = true and MuxClass.DSIVal ues.count =1 and my
muxclass.COM1Ac tive =1 it will not exit the program??? Why is that can
anyone help me

Urgent!!!!!!

If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False And muxClass.DSIVal ues.Count < 2 And
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1 Then
Exit Sub
End If

[Andrew Morton]

cmdolcet69 wrote:

I have the below if statement, that should catch if any of the
conditions are met.....however for some reasons if my
boolDSIFlushGap Reading = true and MuxClass.DSIVal ues.count =1 and my
muxclass.COM1Ac tive =1 it will not exit the program??? Why is that can
anyone help me
If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False And muxClass.DSIVal ues.Count < 2 And
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1 Then
Exit Sub
End If

This is why everyone is saying to use "or" rather than "and": you're not
translating English into computer the right way round.

English: let's have all the apples and bananas->let's have all the apples
and let's have all the bananas

Computer: (all the items where x is an apple) + (all the items where x is a
banana)

Logically, the + translates to "or", not "and".
If in doubt, write it as three separate conditions to make it obvious:

if not(boolDSIFlus hGapReading) then
exit sub
end if

if MuxClass.DSIVal ues.count < 2 then
exit sub
end if

if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1 then
exit sub
end if

Remember the syntax is "if <booleanthen... ", so you shouldn't test boolean
values: you should treat it directly as a boolean, which is why I changed
your "If boolDSIFlushGap Reading = False" to "if
not(boolDSIFlus hGapReading)".

Also, I think that "if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1" is easier to read than "if
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1".

HTH

Andrew

[James Hahn]

"easier to read" is open to debate (although I don't disagree), but
if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on precedence, whereas
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1
does not. Barely significant in this example, but it can save a lot of
headscratching in more complex cases.

"Andrew Morton" <ak*@in-press.co.uk.inv alidwrote in message
news:6m******** ****@mid.indivi dual.net...

snip <

Also, I think that "if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1" is easier to read than
"if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1".

HTH

Andrew

[=?Utf-8?B?QmV0aA==?=]

I thought my threads were weird.

James, do you mean:
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
is interpreted as:
(Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive) = 1
which would never be true, because true equates to -1, false to 0, and is
different from:
Not (muxClass.COM1A ctive = 1)

parens can be your friends...

maybe the whole problem is he should be testing for -1 instead of 1,
I don't know.

"James Hahn" wrote:

"easier to read" is open to debate (although I don't disagree), but
if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on precedence, whereas
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1
does not. Barely significant in this example, but it can save a lot of
headscratching in more complex cases.

"Andrew Morton" <ak*@in-press.co.uk.inv alidwrote in message
news:6m******** ****@mid.indivi dual.net...

snip <

Also, I think that "if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1" is easier to read than
"if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1".

HTH

Andrew

[James Hahn]

No. The two expressions are equivalent. I was simply commenting that the
form
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on
muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
having a higher precedence than the Not. My preference is for having an
expression that doesn't rely on the default precedence rules, therefore I
would use either
Not (muxClass.COM1A ctive = 1)
which makes it explicit or (much simpler)
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1

So not only does it _look_ more sensible but there's some programming sense
behind the choice - just a tiny bit in this case, but possibly relevant in
more complex cases. The original code was complicated enough without the
possibility of misunderstandin g the implied precedence rules.

"Beth" <Be**@discussio ns.microsoft.co mwrote in message
news:3C******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

>I thought my threads were weird.

James, do you mean:
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
is interpreted as:
(Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive) = 1
which would never be true, because true equates to -1, false to 0, and is
different from:
Not (muxClass.COM1A ctive = 1)

parens can be your friends...

maybe the whole problem is he should be testing for -1 instead of 1,
I don't know.

"James Hahn" wrote:

>"easier to read" is open to debate (although I don't disagree), but
if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on precedence, whereas
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1
does not. Barely significant in this example, but it can save a lot of
headscratchi ng in more complex cases.

"Andrew Morton" <ak*@in-press.co.uk.inv alidwrote in message
news:6m******* *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

snip <

Also, I think that "if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1" is easier to read than
"if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1".

HTH

Andrew

[=?Utf-8?B?QmV0aA==?=]

so you're saying you don't like the left-to-right thing being overridden by
the precedence rules, because who remembers the precedence rules anyways (I
don't, obviously. I use parens.)

I don't know why this guy's confused, then.

"James Hahn" wrote:

No. The two expressions are equivalent. I was simply commenting that the
form
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on
muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
having a higher precedence than the Not. My preference is for having an
expression that doesn't rely on the default precedence rules, therefore I
would use either
Not (muxClass.COM1A ctive = 1)
which makes it explicit or (much simpler)
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1

So not only does it _look_ more sensible but there's some programming sense
behind the choice - just a tiny bit in this case, but possibly relevant in
more complex cases. The original code was complicated enough without the
possibility of misunderstandin g the implied precedence rules.

"Beth" <Be**@discussio ns.microsoft.co mwrote in message
news:3C******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I thought my threads were weird.

James, do you mean:
Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
is interpreted as:
(Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive) = 1
which would never be true, because true equates to -1, false to 0, and is
different from:
Not (muxClass.COM1A ctive = 1)

parens can be your friends...

maybe the whole problem is he should be testing for -1 instead of 1,
I don't know.

"James Hahn" wrote:

"easier to read" is open to debate (although I don't disagree), but
if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1
relies on precedence, whereas
if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1
does not. Barely significant in this example, but it can save a lot of
headscratching in more complex cases.

"Andrew Morton" <ak*@in-press.co.uk.inv alidwrote in message
news:6m******** ****@mid.indivi dual.net...
snip <

Also, I think that "if muxClass.COM1Ac tive <1" is easier to read than
"if Not muxClass.COM1Ac tive = 1".

HTH

Andrew

[James Hahn]

I don't think anyone knows why OP is confused because he never comes back to
indicate whether or not he worked it out. He just asks another question
from somewhere else in the project.

"Beth" <Be**@discussio ns.microsoft.co mwrote in message
news:BD******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

so you're saying you don't like the left-to-right thing being overridden
by
the precedence rules, because who remembers the precedence rules anyways
(I
don't, obviously. I use parens.)

I don't know why this guy's confused, then.