alternative if syntax
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: nike air max 2003 ney style hot sell ....free shipping to worldwide
Next: cluttered code prevention?
From: optimistx on 20 Oct 2009 15:16 Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: > In fact, TL's response was not only civil, but also cordial. RTFM. Your being an anonymous/nicknamed, Google Groups, clueless newbie, nothing more was to be expected. FOAD. PLONK
From: Osmo Saarikumpu on 20 Oct 2009 16:19 optimistx kirjoitti: >> Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: >> In fact, TL's response was not only civil, but also cordial. > RTFM. What is wrong with reading the fine manual? Let me quote the whole context to make it clear: "You're welcome, but please read the FAQ now, and ultimately RTFM." ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ The "you are welcome" is a polite response to a thanks. Please is a civil request showing regard for others. I'd say that all the bitterness, sourness and unfriendliness of the above tone is in the touchy eye of the beholder. > Your being an anonymous/nicknamed, There's a clue for you too. > Groups, clueless newbie, nothing more was to be expected. FOAD. That was another message, a response to an undeserved and unjust personal attack. As the saying goes: ingratitude is the world's wage. -- Best wishes, Osmo
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 20 Oct 2009 16:35 Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: > optimistx kirjoitti: >> Your being an anonymous/nicknamed, > > There's a clue for you too. > >> Google Groups, clueless newbie, nothing more was to be expected. FOAD. > > That was another message, a response to an undeserved and unjust > personal attack. And it has been cancelled, and removed from the GG archives long since. Your trying to support me is appreciated, but it is probably better not to waste time with feeding the troll. Remember: Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience :) Regards, PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Jorge on 20 Oct 2009 16:36 On Oct 20, 2:53 am, dsmithy <dsmi...(a)live.ca> wrote: > Hi, > I came across this line of code in a book. It appears to use the > alternative if syntax, but it doesn't quite make sense to me: > > res += (i * j) % 8 ? " " : "*"; > > where res is a string variable, and i and j are number variables (i > increments from 1 to 7 and j increments from 1 to 15). > > What's confusing me is that I thought the expression preceding the ? > had to be a conditional (i.e., true or false) statement in order for > the computer to choose between " " and "*". But (i * j) % 8 isn't a > conditional. It just evaluates to a number. So how is the choice made > between " " and "*"? > > Thank you, The truly "alternative" if syntax is :-) res += ( ((i * j) % 8) && " " ) || "*"; -- Jorge.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 20 Oct 2009 16:40
Jorge wrote: > On Oct 20, 2:53 am, dsmithy <dsmi...(a)live.ca> wrote: >> Hi, >> I came across this line of code in a book. It appears to use the >> alternative if syntax, but it doesn't quite make sense to me: >> >> res += (i * j) % 8 ? " " : "*"; >> >> where res is a string variable, and i and j are number variables (i >> increments from 1 to 7 and j increments from 1 to 15). >> >> What's confusing me is that I thought the expression preceding the ? >> had to be a conditional (i.e., true or false) statement in order for >> the computer to choose between " " and "*". But (i * j) % 8 isn't a >> conditional. It just evaluates to a number. So how is the choice made >> between " " and "*"? >> >> Thank you, > > The truly "alternative" if syntax is :-) > > res += ( ((i * j) % 8) && " " ) || "*"; > > -- > Jorge. Cute, and getting cuter... Hey Jorge, set up a call table in an array so that depending on the index sent, a different function is called.. NO CASE statements allowed! Nor if then else. |