reversing the comparison
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Displaying property menu at runtime
Next: Delay Methods
From: dpb on 22 Jul 2010 15:37 Dee Earley wrote: > On 20/07/2010 19:31, dpb wrote: .... >> ...it [TRUE==/0] is an idiom/convention too ingrained >> into C/C++ vernacular to ever die. And, afaik, TRUE is still equated to >> nonzero not only to the value of the _one_true_TRUE_ (tm) and will have >> to remain because otherwise it breaks almost every C/C++ code in >> existence. > > I guess that's why C# became strongly typed and if() expected > expressions to be explicitly true or false (e.g. compared to a specific > value/range). Which is, of course, allowed when one creates a new language definition but not a reasonable action in existing Standard revisions. That type of backward incompatibility would never get consideration by a committee what more adoption. --
From: Paul Clement on 23 Jul 2010 08:58 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:26:05 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: � > � > � > � > � > It's still backwards with respect to readability. ;-) � > � > � > � > � � > � > � > � > � Only if your screen is infinitely wide, or you just call � > functions � > with � > � > � very short parameter lists. � > � > � > � > � > � > � > � > Or you use line continuation characters. ;-) � > � > � > � � > � > � > � Generally, no. They make E&C a bit more troublesome. HTH! � > � > � > � > � > � > Works fine for me. :-) � > � > � � > � > � You're using a different language, so that's totally irrelevant. � > � > � > � > That's what I was trying to tell you. ;-) � > � � > � No need! I've known you're totally irrelevent for years! :-) � > � > Yeah, apparently only in this group. Wonder why that is? ;-) � � I bet you wonder about a lot of things... Yes, like why this place is beginning to remind of the MSForum on CompuServe. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: dpb on 23 Jul 2010 09:29 ralph wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:07:31 -0600, Tom Shelton > <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote: > > >> The only reason boolean returns came into it is because most modern >> languages force conditionals (if, while, etc) to only accept a >> statement that evaluates to a boolean - so the old constant == varialbe >> convention isn't a requirement.... You get a compiler error in either >> direction. >> > > But the question had nothing to do with *other languages* it was a > C/C++ example, and placing a Constant first has always been a nice > habit to get into when doing comparisons, period. .... Not that it is of any import, but... The introduction of the return values was (at least in my posting) a sidebar brought up owing to the comment of Kevin's in a followup wherein he mentioned he was converting C/C++ to VB. Since the definition of TRUE/FALSE is not consistent between the two, just wanted to remind of the need to be certain any translation maintains the initial intent. Particularly important w/ VB since the NOT operator isn't a logical operator but a bitwise and it might be tempting to write it as If(NOT function() Then... to eliminate awkward-looking arrangement as was. That, of course, breaks if the function return is anything other than 0/1 altho the corresponding C if(~function()) {... is ok owing to the logical "~" instead of bitwise "!" analogous to Not. The assignment vis a vis comparison portion of it is/was addressed earlier as noted; I simply added a personal caveat that _IF_ (the proverbial "big if") there were some other reason owing to C/C++ "features" that any such were beyond my level of expertise. Anyway, that's why I brought up the language comparison... :) --
From: Dee Earley on 23 Jul 2010 11:46 On 23/07/2010 13:58, Paul Clement wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:26:05 -0700, Karl E. Peterson<karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > > �> �> �> �> �> It's still backwards with respect to readability. ;-) > �> �> �> �> � > �> �> �> �> � Only if your screen is infinitely wide, or you just call > �> functions �> with �> �> � very short parameter lists. > �> �> �> �> > �> �> �> �> Or you use line continuation characters. ;-) > �> �> �> � > �> �> �> � Generally, no. They make E&C a bit more troublesome. HTH! > �> �> �> > �> �> �> Works fine for me. :-) > �> �> � > �> �> � You're using a different language, so that's totally irrelevant. > �> �> > �> �> That's what I was trying to tell you. ;-) > �> � > �> � No need! I've known you're totally irrelevent for years! :-) > �> > �> Yeah, apparently only in this group. Wonder why that is? ;-) > � > � I bet you wonder about a lot of things... > > Yes, like why this place is beginning to remind of the MSForum on CompuServe. ;-) Yeah, I ignore half the threads going on atm... -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
From: Kevin Provance on 23 Jul 2010 14:02
"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage(a)swspectrum.com> wrote in message news:pp3j4614a8n33u8ujp3ftehmoud0hm0c1p(a)4ax.com... : : Yes, like why this place is beginning to remind of the MSForum on CompuServe. ;-) Did you ever stop to think it might be that way because evangelists like you, Cory and Skelton have nothing better to do that come here and shove the dot next angle in every chance you get? The only reason you do it is to stir up trouble, looking for responses (textbook troll/bully behaviour). Tell you what, stop doing it for a week, no matter how hard it is to resist and watch how this forum goes back to normal. Solid factual evidence you cannot dispute. Maybe then it'll sink in. Plus, take all the time you spend trolling here and apply it to your dingleball forums, maybe you earn some more dingleballs to hang next to your elite IV. As far as cenn the henn (aka se) and vicki go, and their personal vendetta against me, just ignore them. I don't even see them anymore since killfiling them both...not that anyone is missing much. As much as you would like to, paulie, you can't hold me responsible for thier childish behaviour as I have no control over what little boys do with their obsessions. I mean, anyone who spends that much time on search engine looking for every little tibit I've ever posted across the vast Internet (while cowardly hiding behind phony names) needs to see a psychiatrist, coz medication *will* be needed. I will give you credit where credit is due, however. Not hiding behind a phony or anonymous name. |