//If no sides from vertical A are outside of B
if( ( ( bottomAv <= topB ) || ( topAv >= bottomB ) || ( rightAv <= leftB ) || ( leftAv >= rightB ) ) == false )
{
//A collision is detected
return true;
}
Lazyfoo Tutorial Question
Author
Hey Guys,
I have a quick question regarding LazyFoo's SDL tutorial #19 if anyone has gone through this before.
http://lazyfoo.net/SDL_tutorials/lesson19/index.php
Basically, in the following line...
...lazyFoo describes how to calculate whether a circular object has collided with a rectangular object. Works great and makes sense to me, but, is there a reason why he used the "== false" line in his if statement? Couldn't he have just flipped the greater thans to less thans and vice versa? Maybe I'm missing something huge here.
[/source]
Quote:is there a reason why he used the "== false" line in his if statement?
Not really; I wouldn't have written it that way.
Another way to negate the whole thing is to just put a '!' in front:
if( !( ( bottomAv <= topB ) || ( topAv >= bottomB ) || ( rightAv <= leftB ) || ( leftAv >= rightB ) ) )// ^ there, so that it refers to the entire conditionQuote:Couldn't he have just flipped the greater thans to less thans and vice versa?
You would also have to change the ||'s to &&'s.
Author
Quote:Original post by ZahlmanQuote:is there a reason why he used the "== false" line in his if statement?
Not really; I wouldn't have written it that way.
Another way to negate the whole thing is to just put a '!' in front:if( !( ( bottomAv <= topB ) || ( topAv >= bottomB ) || ( rightAv <= leftB ) || ( leftAv >= rightB ) ) )// ^ there, so that it refers to the entire conditionQuote:Couldn't he have just flipped the greater thans to less thans and vice versa?
You would also have to change the ||'s to &&'s.
I see. The logical not operator definitely makes it look cleaner. I'm going to use your method instead. Thanks for the tip.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
