• Create Account

# funky looking conditional statement i think

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

18 replies to this topic

### #1greenzone  Members   -  Reputation: 672

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:55 PM

This should be a simple one. I am trying to rewrite this MouseCallback function. It is a Gluts MouseCallback function not that it matters i guess. I ran across a set of statements which im pretty sure are conditoinal statements. but i have never seen this kind of set up for a conditional statement before.

  mouseLClickButton |= (button == GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);
mouseRClickButton |= (button == GLUT_RIGHT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);
mouseMClickButton |= (button == GLUT_MIDDLE_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);

mouseLClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);
mouseRClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_RIGHT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);
mouseMClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_MIDDLE_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);


can some one explain what the first set of operators are saying.    |=     and     &=

im assuming that the first three are conditional statements for individual button presses and the second three are for multiple button presses. But i would just like an explanation of what exactly is going on here with the syntax. I have never seen anything like that.

mouseClickButton are all bools. im guessing that if the contitional statement on the right of the operator is tru then it makes that bool on the left tru but its just kind of confusing to me.

Edited by greenzone, 27 June 2013 - 07:59 PM.

J-GREEN

Greenpanoply

### #2marcClintDion  Members   -  Reputation: 435

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:14 PM

This is interesting.  I did a little digging and found the following. They are apparently called (bitwise OR assignment) and (bitwise AND assignment),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B

Here are two more pages that I found using the 'english' names

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/k6d7hcca%28v=vs.100%29.aspx

Hopefully someone around here can explain how they apply to GLUT controls.

http://www.lighthouse3d.com/opengl/glut/index.php3?5

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

### #3Khatharr  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6178

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:33 PM

It's bitwise logic operators being used the same way that you can use the addition operator to say +=.

That is:

a |= b

is the same as:

a = a | b

Seeing the |= at the top there, I'd imagine that those variables are being given a value prior to what you posted. Since boolean values are either true or zero, these operations can be used as standard logic operators in the case that they're working on boolean values (in this case they are). You'd need to be careful with &= in cases where you're not using boolean inputs, since you can have two nonzero values that would be true for && but not for &.

The idea is that you can break up complex conditionals:

if(((a && b) || (c && d) || (x && y && z)) {
//stuff
}

versus

bool condition = a && b;
condition |= c && d;
condition |= x && y && z;
if(condition) {
//stuff
}

If this confuses you, do some research on bitwise logic and truth tables for and/or/xor. It should start to make sense once you have all the information.

Edited by Khatharr, 27 June 2013 - 09:42 PM.

void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

### #4Vortez  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2709

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:41 PM

That's weird though... since the right part is only a true or false expression, it could be written as

BOOL mouseLClickButton = (button == GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);

so im assuming mouseLClickButton are integer, which is ratter poor design choice imo.

Or it might be a bool and wanted to get rid of warning or error messages, being too lazy to cast...

Edit: i just saw the &= afterward. Still, this code look weird somehow.

Edited by Vortez, 27 June 2013 - 09:46 PM.

### #5frob  Moderators   -  Reputation: 37579

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:09 PM

The |= and &= operations were already mentioned above. They are shorthand for bitwise operations.
The stuff on the right side of those operations is doing some logic operations to find a value of true (1) or false (0).

Going through each:

mouseLClickButton |= (button == GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);
mouseRClickButton |= (button == GLUT_RIGHT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);
mouseMClickButton |= (button == GLUT_MIDDLE_BUTTON && state == GLUT_DOWN);

In this case there are three variables. One for each mouse button.

The code first checks if the button matches the left, right or middle button. If it does not match then the result is false, or zero. The |= value is basically a=a|b. So a=a|false results in no change. If the button does match then the right side is evaluated. If that button is down then the state is true. So a=a|true means that the left hand side gets OR'ed with 1. So it sets the low bit to 1.

The end result is that if the indicated button is down the variable becomes either true (if it is a bool) or odd (if it is an integer). Otherwise the value is unchanged.

mouseLClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);
mouseRClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_RIGHT_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);
mouseMClickButton &= !(button == GLUT_MIDDLE_BUTTON && state == GLUT_UP);

These three do similar work. First it matches the correct button. If that is true it checks for up. The result is then negated because of the !, so true becomes false and false becomes true. Putting it all together, if the left button is involved and the button is up, the result = false. If the left button is not involved, or if it is involved and the state is not up, then the result = true. &= is short for a=a&b.

The &= operation works like the logical OR for bools but is a little more tricky to explain for integers. So a=a&true means every bit except for the last becomes zero, and if the bit is already set then keep it. a=a&false means no matter what the bits used to be, clear them all. Basically force it to become 0.

The end result is that if the button is involved and if the button is up, the result becomes false (if it is a bool) or 0 (if it is an integer). Otherwise the value is unchanged (if it is a bool) or for integers, all bits other than the last one become zero and the last bit remains unchanged.

One key thing to notice is that using |= or &= means that if the button is not involved the value is unchanged. This is because they send an event for each mouse button. They get one event saying the left button is down, and a second event saying the middle button is down. When they get an event for the middle button it does not change the values for the right and left buttons. If they had used a plain assignment operator= they would potentially change the value if the button was involved. So pressing the middle button would mean the left button would be marked as being up, even if it really is down. Leaving the value unchanged is important.

Check out my book, Game Development with Unity, aimed at beginners who want to build fun games fast.

Also check out my personal website at bryanwagstaff.com, where I occasionally write about assorted stuff.

### #6greenzone  Members   -  Reputation: 672

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:45 AM

I think i am understanding. mouseClickButton is in fact a bool and is actually never initialized until these conditional statements.

I am following what you say there frob but I am not understanding this a=a&b or a=a|b .

Is this (a=a&b) saying a is true if both a AND b are true?

and this (a=a|b) is saying a is true if a OR b is true?

Edited by greenzone, 28 June 2013 - 06:50 AM.

J-GREEN

Greenpanoply

### #7Álvaro  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 18527

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:57 AM

If those variables are never initialized, that sounds like a mistake.

In my opinion this is a bit easier to read:

  bool is_down = (state == GLUT_DOWN);
switch (button) {
case GLUT_LEFT_BUTTON:
mouseLClickButton = is_down;
break;
case GLUT_RIGHT_BUTTON:
mouseRClickButton = is_down;
break;
case GLUT_MIDDLE_BUTTON:
mouseMClickButton = is_down;
}



Edited by Álvaro, 28 June 2013 - 07:09 AM.

### #8Bregma  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7457

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:00 AM

I think i am understanding. mouseClickButton is in fact a bool and is actually never initialized until these conditional statements.

I am following what you say there frob but I am not understanding this a=a&b or a=a|b .

Is this (a=a&b) saying a is true if both a AND b are true?

and this (a=a|b) is saying a is true if a OR b is true?

Nope.  Bitwise operations operate on bits.

For example, a |= b means effectively

for i from 0 to number of bits in a:
if bit i of b is set, set the bit i of a
otherwise leave the bit i of a unchanged


Similarly for the AND operation.

Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

### #9SiCrane  Moderators   -  Reputation: 11250

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:19 AM

Well, bools only have one bit, so for the case where a and b are both bools a = a & b does boil down to a is true if both a and b are true. Similarly, a = a | b does boil down to a is true if either a or b are true.

(To be pedantic, bools don't have a number of bits, but instead undergo integer promotion when placed in the context of bitwise operators, where true is promoted to 1 and false is promoted to 0.)

### #10greenzone  Members   -  Reputation: 672

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:39 AM

Alvaro, your example makes my eyes feel much better. And SiCrane thank you very much for your explanation.

Bregma is this diagram similar to your explanation of a|=b?

result = result | expression;
0101    (result)
1100    (expression)
----
1101    (output)

Edited by greenzone, 28 June 2013 - 10:49 AM.

J-GREEN

Greenpanoply

### #11Bregma  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7457

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:35 AM

Bregma is this diagram similar to your explanation of a|=b?

Indeed it is.

Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

### #12superman3275  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2061

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:10 PM

I'm a game programmer and computer science ninja !

Here's my 2D RPG-Ish Platformer Programmed in Python + Pygame, with a Custom Level Editor and Rendering System!

Here's my Custom IDE / Debugger Programmed in Pure Python and Designed from the Ground Up for Programming Education!

Want to ask about Python, Flask, wxPython, Pygame, C++, HTML5, CSS3, Javascript, jQuery, C++, Vimscript, SFML 1.6 / 2.0, or anything else? Recruiting for a game development team and need a passionate programmer? Just want to talk about programming? Email me here:

or Personal-Message me on here !

### #13swiftcoder  Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 17347

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:14 PM

(To be pedantic, bools don't have a number of bits, but instead undergo integer promotion when placed in the context of bitwise operators, where true is promoted to 1 and false is promoted to 0.)

(except when they don't. like when some asshole vendor has decided to store flags in the other 31 bits of their boolean)

(I will be scarred for the rest of my life)

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @ Amazon - [swiftcoding] [GitHub]

### #14Khatharr  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6178

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:14 PM

(To be pedantic, bools don't have a number of bits, but instead undergo integer promotion when placed in the context of bitwise operators, where true is promoted to 1 and false is promoted to 0.)

(except when they don't. like when some asshole vendor has decided to store flags in the other 31 bits of their boolean)

(I will be scarred for the rest of my life)

That's why I don't like it when people can't just use the integrated bool type. It seems like every lib that comes along these days has to have its own proprietary bool.

void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

### #15SiCrane  Moderators   -  Reputation: 11250

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:47 PM

I became a lot more sympathetic to the idea of library defined boolean types when I first ran across a platform with an 8 byte bool. And, no, this wasn't a platform where everything was 64 bits. sizeof(bool) was 8. gcc on Alpha IIRC.

### #16swiftcoder  Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 17347

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 06:32 PM

That's why I don't like it when people can't just use the integrated bool type. It seems like every lib that comes along these days has to have its own proprietary bool.

That *was* the integrated bool type.

See, C++ doesn't really enforce many rules. And if you happen to know that on your platform, the compiler allocates 4 bytes for a bool, then you can *(int)&booleanValue, and proceed to manipulate the bits...

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @ Amazon - [swiftcoding] [GitHub]

### #17Khatharr  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6178

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:00 PM

That's why I don't like it when people can't just use the integrated bool type. It seems like every lib that comes along these days has to have its own proprietary bool.

That *was* the integrated bool type.

See, C++ doesn't really enforce many rules. And if you happen to know that on your platform, the compiler allocates 4 bytes for a bool, then you can *(int)&booleanValue, and proceed to manipulate the bits...

Burn it with fire.
void hurrrrrrrr() {__asm sub [ebp+4],5;}

There are ten kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

### #18Bacterius  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 12798

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:13 PM

See, C++ doesn't really enforce many rules. And if you happen to know that on your platform, the compiler allocates 4 bytes for a bool, then you can *(int)&booleanValue, and proceed to manipulate the bits...

This is actually very dangerous when doing language interop, even when the boolean types have the same size. C/C++ would seem to assume that 0 is false and anything else is true, but it is by no means certain that this is the same for all languages. For instance some other languages consider even = false and odd = true (i.e. they look only at the least significant bit, which imho makes more sense, but whatever). In these situations if you hack your "boolean" variable to equal, say, 42 in C++, this will evaluate to true in C++ but false in that other language. And it's not fun to debug.

It happened to me once. I was wondering why the boolean returned by a call to a C++ library I used from Pascal years ago didn't evaluate to what it should have. Turned out their idea of a boolean was not true/false but more like true/false + handle to some internal structure (because apparently, returning that handle by reference wasn't good enough and they needed to squeeze a copy in the return value "for my convenience"). /sigh

But this all goes with the rest.. people trying to be clever by finding loopholes in the standard and ending up shooting themselves (or, preferably, their users) in the foot.

“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”

### #19swiftcoder  Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 17347

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:41 PM

This is actually very dangerous when doing language interop, even when the boolean types have the same size. C/C++ would seem to assume that 0 is false and anything else is true, but it is by no means certain that this is the same for all languages.

Bingo.

Proprietary embedded chip, with 4-byte native alignment, and a CMP instruction that only looked at the least-significant bit.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @ Amazon - [swiftcoding] [GitHub]

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS