I have no idea what the question mark does here.
Why not simply writeCode:cout << bit? "1": "0";
Would that not be the same thing?Code:cout << bit;
I have no idea what the question mark does here.
Why not simply writeCode:cout << bit? "1": "0";
Would that not be the same thing?Code:cout << bit;
if the bit is an int but can only be one or zero, then I suppose the output would be the same. But are you asking what the '?' does? That's the tertiary operator. It is basically an "if/else" on the condition to the left of it.
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
It's called the ternary operator. It's not quite the same thing in this case as bit is more than likely a bool type, while "1" and "0" are strings (character if had been '1'). The effect is the same, however, visually. Programmers like to use it... makes us feel good, I guess.
It would make more sense if the example was:
Then you'd get either of the messages printed depending on whether bit is true (non-zero) or false (zero).Code:cout << bit? "I am non-zero": "nothing here";
I might be wrong.
Quoted more than 1000 times (I hope).Thank you, anon. You sure know how to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away.
This:
for explanation purposes, would be better wrtten as:Code:out << bit? "1": "0";
If "bit" is true, then the expression after the ? will be evaluated.Code:out << bit ? "1" : "0";
If "bit" is false, then the expression after the : will be evaluated.
Mainframe assembler programmer by trade. C coder when I can.
Ternary operators often lead to sloppy looking code. So just be certain you make their use clear.
Example:
Nasty... With some proper tabbing and multi-lining it may be acceptable, however typically for stuff like this more often you may want to consider using a switch case statement instead.Code:int getRed(int color, int colorFormat) { return (colorFormat == RED8GREEN8BLUE8)?color & 0xFF:(colorFormat == RED5GREEN6BLUE5)?color & 0x5:(colorFormat == RED10GREEN12BLUE10)?color & 0x3FF:0; }
Isn't this exactly like the discussion about how you shouldn't build together big, long complex lines we had before?
It's fine on its own. But if you do things like above, you're abusing it.
Originally Posted by Adak
As a person who does like some of the more nasty options available in C++ syntax, I do like to issue conventional wisdom about how to not do as I do. Though I do crazy stuff that would drive you up the wall, Elysia, I do it in a very readable and understandable way.
I wasn't necessarily implying that you were writing unreadable code...
