So I see on the wiki that it'll do && before ||. This sounds like it means that regardless of what order they're in, it checks all the &&s, then it checks all the ||s.
#&& || Logical operators question
stoic nest
So if I have
if(a==1 && b==1 || c==1)
All it takes is for c==1 for the thing to happen?
Now that I've typed the question out in simple terms, it seems a bit obvious.
Could I separate them like this?
[if(a==1 && b==1 || c==1 && d==1):the thing]
Or would the check d==1 before c==1?
old frigate
Without ()'s is goes from left to right. afaik, it has the same priority. If you wish to group them, then use ()'s but you're limited to nesting only 1 pair at a time. [if((a==1 && b==1) || (c==1 && d==1)): "true"]
cosmic prism
Could I separate them like this?
```
[if(a==1 && b==1 || c==1 && d==1):the thing...
Even if you know that expressions are evaluated in a particular order, odds are the next person who looks at your code won't know that (including you, six months from now!). It's always better/safer to use parens as AM describes.
stoic nest
Thanks both. I hadn't even considered using ()s in the if().
The line about it in the wiki makes sense now.
celest ferry
&& has higher priority.
[r: 1 || 0 && 0] is 1
If they had the same priority and the only relevance was left to right, then this would be 0. [r: (1 || 0) && 0] is 0.
[r: 0 && 0 || 1] is 1
If || had higher priority, then this would be 0. [r: 0 && (0 || 1)] is 0.
Edit:
Like Azhrei already wrote, better use ()'s though if the check is not completely obvious, to make sure everyone involved understands what the code does.
@old frigate ^
stoic nest
Oh man. You can get up to all sorts of logical shenanigans.
I just did:
[if( (A && B) && (C || D) ):theThing]
It was awesome.
celest ferry
btw that's just A && B && (C || D). It's a bit like (A * B) * C is just A * B * C and you don't strictly need the parentheses.