bart pisze:

On 09/09/2026 08:14, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 16:42:13 +0100, bart wrote:

I think 'A && B' is equivalent to '(!!A ? 1 : (!!B ? 1 : 0))', if a
boolean result is needed.

Why not just

ÿÿÿÿ A ? B ? true : false : false

Yes, that's better, and more correct. I think mine implemented OR not
AND, and I also decided not to test it.

I used !! because I was aiming towards needing to use & and | but that didn't happen (!!A & !!B would be non-short-circuiting).

i think probably in simple cases when you dont acll functions etc

like if(a<2 & b>7)

.. im not sure though but if compiler has optimising block it is rather
useles to calc b>7

& probably be short-circuiting anyway

In any case, this is very different from A & B.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

fir pisze:

bart pisze:

On 09/09/2026 08:14, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 16:42:13 +0100, bart wrote:

I think 'A && B' is equivalent to '(!!A ? 1 : (!!B ? 1 : 0))', if a
boolean result is needed.

Why not just

ÿÿÿÿ A ? B ? true : false : false

Yes, that's better, and more correct. I think mine implemented OR not
AND, and I also decided not to test it.

I used !! because I was aiming towards needing to use & and | but that
didn't happen (!!A & !!B would be non-short-circuiting).

i think probably in simple cases when you dont acll functions etc

like if(a<2 & b>7)

.. im not sure though but if compiler has optimising block it is rather useles to calc b>7

& probably be short-circuiting anyway

sorry i mixed line order (writing the one beginig .. in wrong place)

should be

i think probably in simple cases when you dont acll functions etc

like if(a<2 & b>7)

& probably be short-circuiting anyway

.. im not sure though but if compiler has optimising block it is rather
useles to calc b>7

In any case, this is very different from A & B.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-09-07, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote:

as i once said i decided to not use && and || as it annoys me (same s == annoys me)

so i will decide to use & | insted but as i not code regullarry today i
not yet maneged to test it throughly when it not work and
if it need big changes in languege to work

i mean one option is that & | should work for BOTH logical and bitwise

The predecessors to the C language had only the bitwise & and | which was
used for testing logical conditions. That's why those operators have
a strangely low precedence.

They work for the purpose, but you have to be fastidiously consistent
about your representation of true; e.g. ensure that true is always 1.

In code like:

if ((status_reg & FOO_MASK) && (io_reg & BAR_MASK)) ..

we cannot blindly replace && with & because status_reg & FOO_MASK
might produce 0x40, and io_reg & BAR_MASK might produce 0x20.

The & and | operators also do not feature left-to-right sequencing.
So we cannot replace && with & in code like

if (ptr != 0 && ptr->foo == bar) ...

Both operands of the & will be evaluated regardless of the value of the
left operand.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)