C++ "OR" operator - c++

can this be done somehow?
if((a || b) == 0) return 1;
return 0;
so its like...if a OR b equals zero, then...but it is not working for me.
my real code is:
bool Circle2::contains(Line2 l) {
if((p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) || p1.distanceFrom(l.p2)) <= r) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}

You need to write the full expression:
(a==0)||(b==0)
And in the second code:
if((p1.distanceFrom(l.p1)<= r) || (p1.distanceFrom(l.p2)<=r) )
return 1;
If you do ((a || b) == 0) this means "Is the logical or of a and b equal to 0. And that's not what you want here.
And as a side note: the if (BooleanExpression)return true; else return false pattern can be shortened to return BooleanExpression;

You have to specify the condition separately each time:
if (a == 0) || (b == 0))
bla bla;
When you do
if ((a || b) == 0)
bla bla;
it has a different meaning: (a || b) means "if either a or b is non-zero (ie. true), then the result of this expression is true".
So when you do (a||b) == 0, you are checking if the result of the previously explained expression is equal to zero (or false).

The C++ language specifies that the operands of || ("or") be boolean expressions.
If p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) is not boolean (that is, if distanceFrom returns int, or double, or some numeric class type), the compiler will attempt to convert it to boolean.
For built in numeric type, the conversion is: non-zero converts to true, zero converts to false. If the type of p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) is of class type Foo, the compiler will call one (and only one) user defined conversion, e.g., Foo::operator bool(), to convert the expression's value to bool.

I think you really want something like this:
bool Circle2::contains(Line2 l) {
if((p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) <= r) || (p1.distanceFrom(l.p2) <= r)) return 1;
return 0;
}

Fun with templates:
template <typename T>
struct or_t
{
or_t(const T& a, const T& b) : value1(a), value2(b)
{
}
bool operator==(const T& c)
{
return value1 == c || value2 == c;
}
private:
const T& value1;
const T& value2;
};
template <typename T>
or_t<T> or(const T& a, const T& b)
{
return or_t<T>(a, b);
}
In use:
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
int a = 7;
int b = 9;
if (or(a, b) == 7)
{
}
return 0;
}
It performs the same comparison you would normally do, though, but at your convenience.

If you have lot of that code, you may consider a helping method:
bool distanceLE (Point p1, Point p2, double threshold) {
return (p1.distanceFrom (p2) <= threshold)
}
bool Circle2::contains (Line2 l) {
return distanceLE (p1, l.p1, r) && distanceLE (p1, l.p2, r);
}
If you sometimes have <, sometimes <=, >, >= and so on, maybe you should pass the operator too, in form of a function.
In some cases your intentions by writing this:
if ((a || b) == 0) return 1;
return 0;
could be expressed with an bitwise-or:
if ((a | b) == 0) return 1;
return 0;
and simplified to
return ! (a | b);
But read up on bitwise operations and test it carefully. I use them rarely and especially I didn't use C++ for some time.
Note, that you inverted the meaning between your examples 1 and 2, returning true and false in the opposite way.
And bitwise less-equal doesn't make any sense, of course. :)

C++ doesn't support any construct like that. Use if (a == 0 || b == 0).

Your condition should be (a == 0 || b == 0) or (p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) <= r || p1.distanceFrom(l.p2)) <= r)

C++ isn't that smart. You have to do each comparison manually.
bool Circle2::contains(Line2 l) {
if((p1.distanceFrom(l.p1) <= r) || (p1.distanceFrom(l.p2) <= r)) return 1;
return 0;
}

Related

Recursive functions with || operator?

So I was tinkering with || and && operators with return. I developed an understanding by comparing int as for example return 1 || 0; return 0 || 0; that the program returns 1 or 0 in case of an int function and true or false in case of bool functions after comparing values.
Now I was writing a code to find path sum to given value using implementation of trees.
bool HasPathSum(ds::sn::BNode<int>* root, int value)
{
if (!root && !value)
{
return true;
}
else if(root)
{
return HasPathSum(root->left, value - root->data)
|| HasPathSum(root->right, value - root->data);
}
return false;
}
I managed to write it after massive tinkering. For recursion I was doing
HasPathSum(root->left, value - root->data);
return HasPathSum(root->right, value - root->data);
To explore all the paths, but it wasn't quite all right because if the path sum was in left, It did go to true but eventually returned false. I figured I will have to write the recursive definition in a single line for it to work and wrote || just as an experiment and it blew my mind that it actually worked. I wrote std::cout << value << " "; at the top of if statement to see what is happening and it does what its supposed do and stops just as a path has been found.
This is all that I've tried but I am unable too wrap my head around how the recursive function with || works or will work if given &&.
If someone experienced can provide an explanation! :)
operator || and operator && does short circuit, so might doesn't evaluate second operand depending of the first one.
bool b = f() || g(); is mostly equivalent to
bool b = f();
if (b == false) b = g();
bool b = f() && g(); is mostly equivalent to
bool b = f();
if (b == true) b = g();

Change comparison operators without large conditional block

I am testing whether a number lies between two values. I leave it up to the user to choose whether the logical comparison should include an equal to on either (or both) of the limits or not.
They set this by defining a structwhich contains the two edge values and which comparison operator to use:
typedef struct {
double low;
double high;
bool low_equal; //false if a greater than operator (`>`) should be used, true if a greater-than-or-equal-to (`>=`) operator should be used
bool high_equal; //Same as low_equal but for a less-than operator
} Edges;
An array of Edges is created, (termed bins below) and for each input value I check whether it lies within the bin edges.
However, in order to use the desired pair of comparison operators, I've ended up with this hideous conditional block:
if (bins[j].low_equal && bins[j].high_equal)
{
if (value >= bins[j].low && value <= bins[j].high)
{
break;
}
}
else if (bins[j].low_equal)
{
if (value >= bins[j].low && value < bins[j].high)
{
data[i] = bins[j].value;
break;
}
}
else if (bins[j].high_equal)
{
if (datum > bins[j].low && datum <= bins[j].high)
{
break;
}
}
else
{
if (value > bins[j].low && value < bins[j].high)
{
break;
}
}
Is there a better way to do this? Can I somehow set the operators to use and then just call them?
A simple approach could be:
bool higher = (value > bins[j].low) || (bins[j].low_equal && value == bins[j].low);
bool lower = (value < bins[j].high) || (bins[j].high_equal && value == bins[j].high);
if (higher && lower)
{
// In range
}
you may use pointer on function
bool less(double lhs, double rhs) { return lhs < rhs; }
bool less_or_equal(double lhs, double rhs) { return lhs <= rhs; }
using comp_double = bool(double, double);
and then
comp_double *low_comp = bins[j].low_equal ? less_or_equal : less;
comp_double *high_comp = bins[j].high_equal ? less_or_equal : less;
if (low_comp(bins[j].low, value) && high_comp(value, bins[j].high)) {
// In range
}
This would be IMO a good case for the ternary operator
if ((bins[j].low_equal ? bins[j].low <= value : bins[j].low < value) &&
(bins[j].high_equal ? value <= bins[j].high : value < bins[j].high)) {
...
}

Deriving the ">" operator from the "<" operator

I am attempting to implement a operator>() function using only the <, || and ! operators. I can do so using the == oparator, but I cannot figure out how to eliminate the case of one operand being equal to the other using only the three given operators. Here is how I have done it otherwise:
bool operator>(a, b){
if(!(a < b) || !(a == b){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
So far the only possibility I have come up with that may work would be to somehow create a recursive function. Other than that, is there any other way in which this can be done?
a < b if and only if b > a - as #Kerrek put it so simply above.
bool operator>(a, b){
if(b < a){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
EDIT: Or even to further simplify, thanks to #Mokosha below
bool operator>(a, b){
return b < a;
}
Besides the obvious solution proposed by #KerrekSB (which is the best because of its simplicity), just as a curiosity you can also follow this approach from your code using the XNOR operator (note that it's not possible to do it using only the || operator, because for defining XOR you need both the || and the && operators - more here):
bool operator>(a, b){
if(!(a < b) || !(x ^ y){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}

Check Array in MFC C++

This code that I have is not working as it should.
for (int i = 0; i <= 140; i++)
{
if (OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Pass" || "Fail" || "Warn" || "Active")
{
OneLine_State.Add(OneLine_Array.GetAt(i));
}
}
It will work though if i have it as
for (int i = 0; i <= 140; i++)
{
if ((OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Pass") || (OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Fail") || (OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Warn") || (OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Active"))
{
OneLine_State.Add(OneLine_Array.GetAt(i));
}
}
I was wondering is there a shorter way of doing this rather than replicating the same line of code over and over again?
thanks.
You can store the result of GetAt before you get to the condition, then you don't need to evaluate it multiple times:
auto x = OneLine_Array.GetAt(i);
if (x == "Pass" || x == "Fail" || x == "Warn" || x == "Active")
For a sufficiently short variable name (but please call it something nicer than x), this will be shorter than your second example.
The reason your original condition doesn't work is because each of "Fail", "Warn", and "Active" are true, so the logical OR will also be true. They are true because they are of array type which can be converted to a pointer to their first elements (char*). A non-null pointer is converted to true.
you can't do this ( OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) == "Pass" || "Fail" || "Warn" || "Active") ==> this is not possible in C++
it will be better to save the string of the OneLine_Array.GetAt(i) in variable and make the "=="
Since you mention MFC C++. With a better performance, I'd suggest using CMap (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/s897094z.aspx) to store your strings. It does speed up the comparision.
Although I prefer what #sftrabbit answered, you could write a little helper for this.
template<typename A, typename B>
bool equals_one_of(const A& a, const B& b)
{
return a == b;
}
template<typename A, typename B, typename... Args>
bool equals_one_of(const A& a, const B& b, const Args&... args)
{
return equals_one_of(a, b) || equals_one_of(a, args...);
}
int f()
{
if (equals_one_of(OneLine_Array.GetAt(i), "Pass", "Fail", "Warn", "Active"))
{
// ....
}
}

Checking union equality

struct Something {
union {
float k;
int n;
};
bool isFloat;
bool operator==(const Something& mS)
{
if(isFloat != mS.isFloat) return false;
if(isFloat && mS.k == k) return true;
if(!isFloat && mS.n == n) return true;
}
};
My implementation of Something::operator== seems rather expensive and convoluted. Is this the only way to check equality in classes with union types?
Or is there a better way that avoids branches/checking additional variables?
bool operator==(const Something& mS)
{
if (isFloat != mS.isFloat)
{
return false;
}
else if (isFloat)
{
return mS.k == k;
}
else
{
return mS.n == n;
}
}
Clear and debuggable with the minimum number of checks. You want to have a constructor and/or set methods to ensure isFloat is correct at all times.
You can remove one redundant check, and perhaps enhance readability slightly, by replacing the last two lines with
if(isFloat != mS.isFloat) return false; // As you have
return isFloat ? mS.k == k : mS.n == n;
(or the equivalent if construct, as in Sean Perry's answer) but the compiler will probably do just as good a job of optimising your version.
There's no way to avoid a runtime check that the types match. You might consider a ready-made discriminated union type like Boost.Variant; it won't be any more efficient, but it might be easier and less error-prone to use.
return (isFloat && mS.isFloat && k==mS.k) || (!isFloat && !mS.isFloat && n==mS.n);
I do not think that you can escape checking all the conditions. So the question can be how to write them more simpler and expressively.
I would write them the following way
bool operator==( const Something &mS ) const
{
return ( ( isFloat == mS.isFloat ) && ( isFloat ? k == mS.k : n == mS.n ) );
}