Operator class?

[Blackroot]

Is it possible to make a class for operators? IE:

Operator A = +;
int B, C;

B = (B A C);

The only reason I want to do this, is to avoid having long if statements that do the same thing only a slight change to operators

Operator A = +;
int B, C;

if(B > 0)
 a = -;

 B = (B A C);

As opposed to:

int B, C:

if(B > 0)
 B = B - C;
if(B <= 0)
 B = B + C;

Now, thats pritty simple code that I wouldent mind doing. They are both 5 lines, the same amount of work. But, when I want something like:

int A, B, C;

if(A < 0 && B > 0) {
 A += 1;
 A = (B + C) / A;
 B += 1;
 B = (C - A) / B;
 C = (C << 2) / A; 
}

if(A > C && B > C) {
 A += 1;
 A = (B - C) / A;
 B += 1;
 B = (C - A) / B;
 C = (C << 2) / A;
}

Instead of making a whole new IF and make the same code twice, it would be ten times easier to do:

Operator O = -;
int A, B, C;

if(A < 0 && B > 0)
 O = +;

 A += 1;
 A = (B O C) / A;
 B += 1;
 B = (C - A) / B;
 C = (C << 2) / A;

Basicaly, I'm just trying to cut down on uncessisary lines of code. Though, I realize (B O C) would be very ugly. (Would seem more like you wanted to multiply the three) But, is there some way to do this? Even if its some hackish define? (#define M (A, B) (A < 0) + (A > 0) -) I know thats not a real define (Never made a define macro)

Well, if its possible by some means, it'd be great.

Thanks!

[SlyMaelstrom]

No, that's not possible. I really see little logic in it other than maybe saving you a few lines of code overall... is that really worth making rediculous looking code? ... and really... can't you write better examples than that? If you're so interested in saving lines of code, there is no reason that this:

int A, B, C;  // Assume some initialization.

if(A < 0 && B > 0) {
 A += 1;
 A = (B + C) / A;
 B += 1;
 B = (C - A) / B;
 C = (C << 2) / A; 
}

else {  /* I made this else because that's really what you alternative says. Not another if */
 A += 1;
 A = (B - C) / A;
 B += 1;
 B = (C - A) / B;
 C = (C << 2) / A;
}

Can't be this:

int A, B, C; // Assume some initialization.

A += 1;

A = ((A < 0 && B > 0) ? (B + C) : (B - C)) / A; 
/* A = (B [+/-] C) / A   --   [depending on the condition] */

B += 1;

B = (C - A) / B;
C = (C << 2) / A;

[grumpy]

Assuming all you're worried about is adding in some cases and subtracting in others, the code

int B, C:

if(B > 0)
 B = B - C;
if(B <= 0)
 B = B + C;

could be simplified to;

int B, C;
int multiplier = (B > 0) ? -1: 1;

B += multiplier*C;

I saw someone do something like you suggest with some macro hackery a few years back. He was actually trying to come up with an entry for an obfuscated C contest IIRC. I certainly wouldn't care to maintain such code.

[Blackroot]

Hmm, that integer is pritty much what I needed. I'm wondering if this would work.

#define GZeroAdd (A) ( (A > 0) ? -1 : 1 )
#define GZeroMult(A) ((A > 0) ? A : 1)

//...

int A, B;

B-=(GZeroAdd(A)A);
B*=(GZeroMult(B));

Its very ugly, but its not an unholy solution (Though quite annoying, yes).

Sly, your option is good normaly, but it wouldent work. You'd be deviding by zero when you initialized A. Unless its possible to do?:?

int A = -1;
int B = 1;
A = ((A < 0 && B > 0) ? ((B + C) / -A) : ((B - C) / -A));

Still, both solutions are not pritty. The reason I said several if's is becuase in my actual program that occures. (Happens to be collision detection, I have wayyy to many if's doing exactly the same thing with one or two differences in the multipliers. IE [+/-] height then [+/-]width, [+/-] MovementIncrement six if's that could be done in a single one or two. (Zero with either solution.))

Well, does anyone have some other solution, or recommend either of theyse? -,-.

[SlyMaelstrom]

Sly, your option is good normaly, but it wouldent work. You'd be deviding by zero when you initialized A.

There is no check against dividing by zero in your example... I assumed you understood it would have to be there and left it out as I did.