Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #401690
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work |
| Date | 2026-09-07 16:42 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <117mm0k$3cu2d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <117mere$3a14a$1@dont-email.me> |
On 07/09/2026 14:39, fir 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 > > is it possible? No, because they do different things. But if you can only have one, then & and | are more flexible: I think 'A && B' is equivalent to '(!!A ? 1 : (!!B ? 1 : 0))', if a boolean result is needed. You can't do '!!A & !!B' because && short-circuits. > > if not i wuld probably suggest using some other methods to make it work > (i could eventually say that &| would better work for logical and && || > for bitwise but im not saing this becouse it would alos be bad imo) > so maybe better it should work for both (?) > > if it not brings some problems i suspect something like > > 3&4 has different meaning in logical (1) and bitwise (7) but is that a > problem? Yeah, it's a problem: 3&4 has result 0, but 3&&4 has result 1. But in this case, (!!3)&(!!4) can be used to give 1.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
why &| dont work and its possible to make it work fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:39 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 16:42 +0100
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 18:14 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-09 07:14 +0000
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:15 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 11:23 +0100
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 13:28 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:01 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 17:49 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 18:22 +0200
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-09 06:07 +0000
Re: why &| dont work and its possible to make it work Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-09-10 20:13 +0000
csiph-web