Hey all really quick question...
I tried doing this...
for(i = 2; i >= 1 || i <= 3; i += direction)
can I do that boolean operation right within the for loop. It compiles ok but I forget if it will actually function correctly.
PS: I cant test this because I am working on an embedded system and doing skeleton code atm.
"i >= 1 || i <= 3" is always true, so your for loop will never stop.
How is it always true when i is being incremented? Maybe I should specify that direction will either be 1 or -1
so for instance if direction is -1...
i = 2
check i >= 1 || i <= 3 YES
"run through loop"
i = i - 1 == 1
check i >= 1 || i <= 3 YES
"run through loop"
i = 1 - 1 == 0
check i >= 1 || i <= 3 NO
exit loop..
Unless adding the boolean does something weird?
If you think 0 <= 3 is false, then we've got bigger problems.Originally Posted by Toonzaka
Alright my bad; maybe next time instead of being snarky with me you should just answer my question and correct me. I am sorry that I did not see my typo. I understand the concept so thank you for just not helping anyone and wasting both of our time really THANK YOU
Now getting onto the real question instead of || i mean &&.... is that so hard?
Yes you can have any expression in the for condition as long as it evaluates to some value.
He wasn't "snarky with you". His first post answered your question: "this will always be true"
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
"some value" is too vague for my liking.
If an expression is specified between the semicolons, the expression result needs to at least be implicitly convertible to bool. Preferably the expression is actually a boolean expression.
Nothing asked on here is ever really just a yes/no question. Just title your posts with what they are about next time. For instance "for-loop question" would have been pretty much ideal.
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
That is/was not true in the 1989 C standard, as that standard did not support any bool type. The actual requirement is that the expression can be compared with zero.
Oh my bad, yes of course, I was thinking this was the C++ forum.
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
