Is there a way to use the ternary operator to choose between two operators?
Example:
Code:BOOL greaterThan = true; int x = 5; int y = 10; if(x (greaterThan? > : <) y) { do something if greaterThan is true, and x > y, or if greaterThan is false, and x < y }
You literally spelled out how to do this:
Code:if ((greaterThan && x > y) || (!greaterThan && x < y))
In the expression you don't actually need the greaterThan as factor, unless it relates to some part of your program you aren't showing...
The simplest solution is like this...
Terniary solutions or those with a single if()-eles statement will let the case of x = y fall right through.Code:if (x > y) { DoThisThing(); } // x is greater than y else if (y > x) { DoThatThing(); } // y is greater than x else { DoTheOtherThing(); } // y equals x
The expresions used between the ? and the :, or after the :, must be able to be evaluated on their own.
What you had doesn't work for the same reason thatdoesn't work.Code:if ( < )
This would have worked:Code:if (greaterThan ? x > y : x < y)
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"
Judging by what he wrote in plain text I don't think that's actually what he wanted to do... and if it is he'll definitely have to work on putting his ideas into words, because that's fundamental to programming.Originally Posted by iMalc
I'm perplexed as to why you think that.
His statement "do something if greaterThan is true, and x > y, or if greaterThan is false, and x < y" is perfectly understandable, and the expressions you and I wrote are exactly equivalent.
Generate a truth table if you don't believe me. Either your boolean expression rearranging isn't quite second nature yet as it is for me after all these years, or you must misunderstand how the ternary operator works.
Combine the code he actually wrote and the description, and it is 100% clear that he was after exactly what I posted.
Last edited by iMalc; 06-27-2011 at 12:20 AM.
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"
@iMalc - You're perfectly right, my fault. Sorry.
Not possible to do exacly what OP wanted, but how about
x < y ^ greaterThan
... which flips the logic outcome depending on 'greaterThan'.
There is still the issue of how cases <=, >=, ==, != are handled exactly. But this was not specified to begin with.
Last edited by nonoob; 06-27-2011 at 01:37 PM.
