Not when there is a ! in front of the arguments...
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, DJ Pure wrote:
> Hmm..
> *Everyone* is saying to add the &&. This is wrong.
> Someone mentioned to add the () around each seperate check, but LEAVE the
> ||
>
> You see, with the && the person who is kicking has to be a WARRIOR *AND* a
> BARD if the && is there. The && means AND, which is like saying "nd there's
> no buts about it"..
>
> eg. if ( (x == CLASS_1) && (x == CLASS_2) ) {
> blahblahblahb...
> }
>
> This says that if x is equal to class one AND IT HAS TO ALSO be equal to
> class two, then do that stuff in between the { }. If the || was there, the
> x can EITHER be class one or class 2, wuhich is the correct answer. How
> many classes are BOTH a warrior AND a bard .. If they are scitsofrenic
> (sp?) then maybe ... but not normally.
>
> So in summary ... NO &&.[bitwaise and] keep the || [bitwise or].
>
> jus
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
> | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST