#include<stdio.h>
void main()
{int a=12,b=7;
if(!a>=20) //this is the part can't identify
b>>1;
printf("b=%d",b);}
What does mean If(!a>=20) in C this programme?
The expression !a >= 20 is the same as (!a) >= 20.
And ! is the logical-not operator. If a is "true" (which all non-zero values are) then !a will be false.
And false is implicitly convertible to the int value 0 (and true to 1).
So what the expression is doing is checking if a is "true" or "false" and compare the 0 or 1 result of that with the integer value 20. And as both 0 and 1 are smaller than 20 the condition will be false.
Is this a interview question?
Or some tricky problem?
This c - code is not proffesionally indentend and missing of bracketing.
This is unusual way because if statement will never happend and in addition the code inside 'if' does nothing...
As mentioned above !a - will return integer - 0 for non-zeros values of 'a', and integer - 1 for zero value of 'a'...
b>>1 do a bit shifts, but result is not storing anywhere...
I guess that the proper form of code should looks like:
#include<stdio.h>
void main()
{
int a = 12,b = 7;
if(!(a >= 20))
b = b >> 1; // it will execute and produce b equal to 3
printf("b=%d", b);
}
It means the author was aiming for a convoluted form of if (a < 20) but missed.
The unary ! operator has higher precedence than >=, so the expression is parsed as (!a) >= 20. The result of !a is 0 if a is non-zero and 1 if a is zero, neither of which are greater than or equal to 20, so this expression will never be true regardless of the value of a.
It’s pretty clear the author meant to write !(a >= 20), which as I said earlier is the same as a < 20.
To understand any expression, there are sort of two ways of doing it.
For a sensible expression, that matches common idioms, that is well-balanced with the ways people speak and think, you can just sort of look at it and know what it does. If you see the expression
if(a >= 20)
then even if you don't know anything about C programming, as long as you know that > is "greater than", you can read this as "if a is greater than or equal to 20" and get a pretty good (and accurate!) idea of what it does.
But for a more complicated expression, that doesn't match a pattern you've seen before, and especially if it's badly written (or even deliberately confusingly written), you have to analyze it strictly logically, breaking it up into smaller parts, using the same rules the compiler will use. For an expression like this, the important rules have to do with precedence.
We've got
! a >= 20
Hopefully you know that ! is the logical negation operator: it turns false to true, and true to false.
So we're doing something with the variable a here, and we're negating something, and we're comparing something to see if it's greater than or equal, and we're comparing to 20. But how do these pieces fit together, exactly? Which parts of the expression are combined with which other parts?
Here there are really only two possibilities. We could be comparing a to see if it's greater than or equal to 20, and then negating the result. Or, we could be negating a, and comparing the negation of a to see if it's greater than or equal to 20.
To understand these various situations precisely, we can use some special notations to remove all ambiguity. To clearly express the notion of "comparing a to see if it's greater than or equal to 20, and then negating the result" we could write it using explicit parentheses:
! (a >= 20 )
or we could draw a "parse tree", showing graphically how the pieces fit together:
!
|
>=
/ \
a 20
Similarly, to clearly express the notion of "negating a, and comparing the negation to see if it's greater than or equal to 20" we could write it using explicit parentheses:
( ! a ) >= 20
or we could draw a different parse tree:
>=
/ \
! 20
|
a
But we still haven't answered the original question: for the "bare" expression
!a >= 20
which of these two interpretations holds? As I said, to answer it we need to look at the precedence of the operators. The C precedence table says that ! has higher precedence than >=. This means that ! "binds more tightly" than >=. So ! applies to a, and then >= applies to the result. This means that the interpretation we get is as if we had explicitly written
( ! a ) >= 20
So this means, "first logically negate 20". Now, in C, anything with the value 0 is "false", and anything with a nonzero value is "true". We know that a is 12, so that's "true". So !a is false, or 0.
Now we can compare to 20. Is 0 greater than or equal to 20? No, it is not. So the condition
if(!a >= 20)
will not do the controlled thing.
That answers your main question, but there are a few other things which it might be interesting to look at.
First, what is "the controlled thing"? You had
if(!a>=20)
b>>1;
which is kind of hard to read. Normally, when we write an if statement, we indent the controlled thing, to make it more obvious that it is, well, the controlled thing. So let's first write it as
if(!a >= 20)
b >> 1;
So now it's more clear that, if the condition is true, we'll do b >> 1. But we've determined that the condition is not true, So we're not going to do this thing.
What's odd is that even if we did do this thing, it wouldn't do anything. The expression
b >> 1
means, "take b's value and shift it to the right by 1 bit position". Okay, so we do that, but then: what do we do with the shifted result? Nothing! It disappears! This is like saying
b + 1;
Generally, you compute a new result, like b >> 1 or b + 1, so that you can do something with it, like print it out, or assign it to a new variable.
It would have made more sense if the code were written
if(!a >= 20)
b >>= 1;
or
if(!a >= 20)
b = b >> 1;
Now, in either case, we've got code that will, maybe, take b's value, shift it right by one bit, and store the modified value back in b.
But there's still the puzzle that the condition is always false, meaning that we never do the thing.
We decided that the expression
!a >= 20
meant "take a's logically negated value, and see if it's greater than or equal to 20." But logical negation is a "Boolean" operation, that only ever yields true or false. So, no matter what a's value is, the expression !a is always going to be either true or false. So it's always going to be either 1 or 0. So it's never going to be greater than (or equal to) 20.
And actually, things are doubly strange here, because most of the time, if you look at the whole class of true/false Boolean expressions, and the whole class of numeric expressions involving integer and floating-point values, these two classes are sort of like oil and water, they don't mix. You can take an integer and a Boolean value and add them together, or ask if one is greater than or equal to another, but its a strange thing to do, it's suspect, it doesn't usually make sense.
So this is a very strange, basically very stupid, expression to write, because it never does anything interesting. A more interesting expression would be
if(!(a >= 20))
Now, we're comparing a's value (which is a number) to 20. Then, we're taking the true-or-false result, that we got from comparing a to 20, and logically negating it, changing true to false or false to true. That's a much more sensible thing to do.
But in the end, even though it makes more sense, a condition like
if(!(a >= 20))
is still a little bit more complicated, a little bit more confusing, a little bit harder to read than it probably has to be. Instead of saying, "if it's not the case that a is greater than or equal to 20", why not just say, "if it is the case that a is less than 20"? That is, it would be 100% equivalent, and probably much less confusing, to just say
if(a < 20)
Related
I had the need to code a statement of the form
a = a || expr;
where expr should be evaluated and the result be assigned to a iff a is not set. this relies on the logical OR's short-circuiting capabilities.
The shorter way to write the above would, of course, be
a ||= expr;
but (to my surprise) C does not have logical assignment operators.
So my question is twofold. First, is there a shorter way to write the first statement in standard C (the ternary operator is even worse - a = a ? a : expr requires me to spell out a thrice).
Secondly, why aren't there logical assignments in C? The possible reasons I could think of are:
it makes the grammar harder to parse?
there is some subtlety in handling short-circuiting for these cases?
it was considered superfluous (but isn't that an argument against ALL the operator assignments?)
EDIT
Please unlock this question because:
The question it has been linked to (as a alleged duplicate of) HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED. The (accepted) answer to that question states that ||= is not present because duplicates the functionality of |=. That is the wrong answer. |= does not short-circuit.
C and C++ are NOT the same languages. I wish to know why C doesn't have it. In fact, the fact that derived languages like C++ and, particularly, Java (which did not suffer from the problems of legacy code as has been suggested in Edmund's answer) makes the question even more interesting.
EDIT 2
It now seems like my original intent was wrong. In the statement a = a || expr (where a is integral and expr returns an integral value, first both a and expr will be implicitly converted to "booleans", and then the "boolean" value will be assigned to a. This will be incorrect — the integral value will be lost. Thanks, Jens and Edmund.
So for the first part of the question, the correct ways, not alternatives :), to code my intention would be:
if (!a) a = expr;
or
a = a ? a : expr;
they should be optimized the same (I think) though personally I would prefer the first one (because it has one less a to type).
However, the second part of the question still remains. The arguments that Jens and Edmund about have given about the ambiguity in a ||= expr apply equally well to a = a || expr. the assignment case can simply be treated as the normal one:
convert a to boolean
if it is true, the value of the entire expression becomes equal to the boolean value of a
otherwise evaluate expr, convert result to boolean, assign to a, and return it
The steps above seem to be the same for both the assignment and normal case.
a ||= expr is problematic due to short circuit evaluation of its equivalent a = a || expr.
To have a ||= expr function like a = a || expr consider OP's assertion:
"In the statement a = a || expr ..., first both a and expr will be implicitly converted to "booleans","
This is not quite correct. expr will not be converted if a evaluates to true. This would make a difference should expr be something like scanf() or rand() or some function that affected the state of the program.
Code such as a ||= scanf("%d", &i) != 1; would only attempt to scan data with a false value in a. Although it would be possible to extend the language this way, additional short-circuit operators to the current set of || and && would likely cause more coding problems than clear simplifications.
On the other hand: A quick, if obfuscated, way to write code where functions return non-zero codes on error.
// Perform functions until an error occurs.
bool error = foo1();
error &&= foo2(); // Only valid if C was extended with &&=
error &&= foo3();
Because the return type of operators || and && is not the same as type of their left argument.
The return type of || and && is always int1, while the left argument may be any integral, floating point or pointer type. The operands also don't have to be of the same type. Therefore defining x ||= y as x = x || y and x &&= y as x = x && y as would be consistent with other augmented assignments would not be able to store the result in the argument for most types.
You could come up with other definitions, e.g. x ||= y as if(!x) x = y and x &&= y as if(!y) x = y, but that would not be exactly obvious and it is not that useful, so it was not included.
1In C++ it is bool.
I guess the simple answer is that || is a boolean operator: and in C, a "boolean" is 0 or 1. The operands are implicitly converted to booleans (I have not checked that that's what the spec actually says, but it's how C behaves), and the result is a boolean.
Altering the semantics to support this pattern may well be feasible -- until someone relies on || doing what it's always done.
I cannot find any particular reason, why the operators don't exist (in C99).
So the only reason I can find is, that there was no boolean type in C89, and those boolean operators were intended to be solely used in if's.
Example:
int i = 5;
/* This should not make any difference,
since or'ing with false, shouldn't change
the value... dib di dib diddy...*/
i ||= 0; /* Actually: i = i || 0, which gives 'true' */
i is now '1'', which for most people is pretty counter intuitive.
This operator obviously doesn't bring any clearence or coding improvement without the boolean type, that would make sence being or'd with another one.
In my opinion, the implementation of a ||= b; as if(!a) a = b; would be pretty straightforward and has aleardy been implemented by e.g. Lua.
So you're question seems to be a bit, why C has been designed the way it has been designed.
If this question was about C++, you could for example ask Bjarne Stroustrup and ask him, what had went into him. Since this is not the case, this seems to me to be kind of a dead end, because the standard has been written quite some time ago and you cannot really ask people anymore, why the h***.
On the other hand, this incomplete operator set should (in my opinion) aleardy have been made whole using a similar notation than yours, since in my opinion, there is no reason against it.
I hope I could help a little.
One simple explanation is this.
bool resultsComputeAll = false;
bool resultsUntilFirst = false;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
resultsComputeAll = compute(i) || resultsComputeAll;
resultsUntilFirst = resultsUntilFirst || compute(i);
}
Which one would be result ||= compute(i)? It's ambiguous so it's better to not define.
I was reading my textbook for my computer architecture class and I came across this statement.
A second important distinction between the logical operators '&&' and '||' versus their bit-level counterparts '&' and '|' is that the logical operators do not evaluate their second argument if the result of the expression can be determined by evaluating the first argument. Thus, for example, the expression a && 5/a will never cause a division by zero, and the expression p && *p++ will never cause the dereferencing of a null pointer. (Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective by Bryant and O'Hallaron, 3rd Edition, p. 57)
My question is why do logical operators in C behave like that? Using the author's example of a && 5/a, wouldn't C need to evaluate the whole expression because && requires both predicates to be true? Without loss of generality, my same question applies to his second example.
Short-circuiting is a performance enhancement that happens to be useful for other purposes.
You say "wouldn't C need to evaluate the whole expression because && requires both predicates to be true?" But think about it. If the left hand side of the && is false, does it matter what the right hand side evaluates to? false && true or false && false, the result is the same: false.
So when the left hand side of an && is determined to be false, or the left hand side of a || is determined to be true, the value on the right doesn't matter, and can be skipped. This makes the code faster by removing the need to evaluate a potentially expensive second test. Imagine if the right-hand side called a function that scanned a whole file for a given string? Wouldn't you want that test skipped if the first test meant you already knew the combined answer?
C decided to go beyond guaranteeing short-circuiting to guaranteeing order of evaluation because it means safety tests like the one you provide are possible. As long as the tests are idempotent, or the side-effects are intended to occur only when not short-circuited, this feature is desirable.
A typical example is a null-pointer check:
if(ptr != NULL && ptr->value) {
....
}
Without short-circuit-evaluation, this would cause an error when the null-pointer is dereferenced.
The program first checks the left part ptr != NULL. If this evaluates to false, it does not have to evaluate the second part, because it is already clear that the result will be false.
In the expression X && Y, if X is evaluated to false, then we know that X && Y will always be false, whatever is the value of Y. Therefore, there is no need to evaluate Y.
This trick is used in your example to avoid a division by 0. If a is evaluated to false (i.e. a == 0), then we do not evaluate 5/a.
It can also save a lot of time. For instance, when evaluating f() && g(), if the call to g() is expensive and if f() returns false, not evaluating g() is a nice feature.
wouldn't C need to evaluate the whole expression because && requires both predicates to be true?
Answer: No. Why work more when the answer is known "already"?
As per the definition of the logical AND operator, quoting C11, chapter §6.5.14
The && operator shall yield 1 if both of its operands compare unequal to 0; otherwise, it
yields 0.
Following that analogy, for an expression of the form a && b, in case a evaluates to FALSE, irrespective of the evaluated result of b, the result will be FALSE. No need to waste machine cycle checking the b and then returning FALSE, anyway.
Same goes for logical OR operator, too, in case the first argument evaluates to TRUE, the return value condition is already found, and no need to evaluate the second argument.
It's just the rule and is extremely useful. Perhaps that's why it's the rule. It means we can write clearer code. An alternative - using if statements would produce much more verbose code since you can't use if statements directly within expressions.
You already give one example. Another is something like if (a && b / a) to prevent integer division by zero, the behaviour of which is undefined in C. That's what the author is guarding themselves from in writing a && 5/a.
Very occasionally if you do always need both arguments evaluated (perhaps they call functions with side effects), you can always use & and |.
We know that any numbers that are not equal to 0 are viewed as true in C, so we can write:
int a = 16;
while (a--)
printf("%d\n", a); // prints numbers from 15 to 0
However, I was wondering whether true / false are defined as 1/0 in C, so I tried the code below:
printf("True = %d, False = %d\n", (0 == 0), (0 != 0)); // prints: True = 1, False = 0
Does C standard explicitly indicate the truth values of true and false as 1 and 0 respectively?
Does the C standard explicitly indicate the truth values of true and false as 0 and 1 respectively?
The C standard defines true and false as macros in stdbool.h which expand to 1 and 0 respectively.
C11-§7.18:
The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives. They are
true
which expands to the integer constant 1,
false
which expands to the integer constant 0 [...]
For the operators == and != , standard says
C11-§6.5.9/3:
The == (equal to) and != (not equal to) operators are analogous to the relational operators except for their lower precedence.108) Each of the operators yields 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if it is false. The result has type int. For any pair of operands, exactly one of the relations is true.
It is not explicitly indicated in C11. All language-level operations will return 1 as truthy (and accept any nonzero including NaN as true).
If you concern about _Bool, then true must be 1 because the standard only require it to hold 0 and 1. (§6.2.5/2).
Also in <stdbool.h> the macro true expands to 1 (§7.18/3)
==, !=, <, >, <= and >= return 0 or 1 (§6.5.8/6, §6.5.9/3).
!, && and || return 0 or 1 (§6.5.3.3/5, §6.5.13/3, §6.5.14/3)
defined expands to 0 or 1 (§6.10.1/1)
But all standard library functions e.g. islower just say "nonzero" for truthy (e.g. §7.4.1/1, §7.17.5.1/3, §7.30.2.1/1, §7.30.2.2.1/4).
§6.2.5/2: An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1.
§6.5.5.3/5: The result of the logical negation operator ! is 0 if the value of its operand compares unequal to 0, 1 if the value of its operand compares equal to 0. …
§6.5.8/6: Each of the operators < (less than), > (greater than), <= (less than or equal to), and >= (greater than or equal to) shall yield 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if it is false.107) …
§6.5.9/3: The == (equal to) and != (not equal to) operators are analogous to the relational operators except for their lower precedence.108) Each of the operators yields 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if it is false. …
§6.5.13/3: The && operator shall yield 1 if both of its operands compare unequal to 0; …
§6.5.14/3: The || operator shall yield 1 if either of its operands compare unequal to 0; …
§6.10.1/1: … it may contain unary operator expressions of the form — defined identifier — or — defined ( identifier ) — which evaluate to 1 if …
§7.4.1 (Character classification functions)/1: The functions in this subclause return nonzero (true) if and only if …
§7.18/3: The remaining three macros are suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives. They are — true — which expands to the integer constant 1, …
§7.17.5.1/3: The atomic_is_lock_free generic function returns nonzero (true) if and only if the object’s operations are lock-free. …
§7.30.2.1 (Wide character classification functions)/1: The functions in this subclause return nonzero (true) if and only if …
§7.30.2.2.1/4: The iswctype function returns nonzero (true) if and only if …
There are two areas of the standard you need to be aware with when dealing with Boolean values (by which I mean true/false values rather than the specific C bool/_Bool type) in C.
The first has to do with the result of expressions and can be found in various portions of C11 6.5 Expressions (relational and equality operators, for example) . The bottom line is that, whenever a Boolean value is generated by an expression, it ...
... yields 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if it is false. The result has type int.
So, yes, the result of any Boolean-generating expression will be one for true, or zero for false. This matches what you will find in stdbool.h where the standard macros true and false are defined the same way.
Keep in mind however that, following the robustness principle of "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept", the interpretation of integers in the Boolean context is somewhat more relaxed.
Again, from various parts of 6.5, you'll see language like:
The || operator shall yield 1 if either of its operands compare unequal to 0; otherwise, it yields 0. The result has type int.
From that (and other parts), it's obvious that zero is considered false and any other value is true.
As an aside, the language specifying what value are used for Boolean generation and interpretation also appear back in C99 and C89 so they've been around for quite some time. Even K&R (ANSI-C second edition and the first edition) specified that, with text segments such as:
Relational expressions like i > j and logical expressions connected by && and || are defined to have value 1 if true, and 0 if false.
In the test part of if, while, for, etc, "true" just means "non-zero".
The && operator ... returns 1 if both its operands compare unequal to zero, 0 otherwise.
The || operator ... returns 1 if either its operands compare unequal to zero, and 0 otherwise.
The macros in stdbool.h appear back in C99 as well, but not in C89 or K&R since that header file did not exist at that point.
You are mixing up a lot of different things: control statements, operators and boolean types. Each have their own rules.
Control statements work like for example the if statement, C11 6.4.8.1:
In both forms, the first substatement is executed if the expression
compares unequal to 0.
while, for etc have the same rule. This has nothing to do with "true" or "false".
As for operators that are supposedly yielding a boolean result, they are actually yielding an int with value 1 or 0. For example the equality operators, C11 6.5.9:
Each of the operators yields 1 if the specified relation is true and 0
if it is false
All of the above is because C did not have a boolean type until the year 1999, and even when it did get one, the above rules weren't changed. So unlike most other programming languages where statements and operators yield a boolean type (like C++ and Java), they just yield an int, with a value zero or not zero. For example, sizeof(1==1) will give 4 in C but 1 in C++.
The actual boolean type in C is named _Bool and requires a modern compiler. The header stdbool.h defines macros bool, true and false, that expand to _Bool, 1 and 0 respectively (for compatibility with C++).
It is however considered good programming practice to treat control statements and operators as if they actually required/yielded a boolean type. Certain coding standards like MISRA-C recommend such practice. That is:
if(ptr == NULL) instead of if(ptr).
if((data & mask) != 0) instead of if(data & mask).
The aim of such style is to increase type safety with the aid of static analysis tools, which in turn reduces bugs. Arguably, this style is only meaningful if you do use static analysers. Though in some cases it leads to more readable, self-documenting code, for example
if(c == '\0')
Good, the intent is clear, the code is self-documenting.
versus
if(c)
Bad. Could mean anything, and we have to go look for the type of c to understand the code. Is it an integer, a pointer or a character?
I've programmed in many languages. I've seen true be 1 or -1 depending on the language. The logic behind true being 1 was that a bit was either a 0 or 1. The logic behind true being -1 was that the ! operator was a one's complement. It changed all the 1's to 0's and all the 0's to 1's in an int. So, for an int, !0 = -1 and !(-1) = 0. This has tripped me up enough that I don't compare something to be == true, but instead compare it to be != false. That way, my programming style works in every language. So my answer is to not worry about it, but program so that your code works correctly either way.
This answer needs to be looked at a bit more closely.
The actual definition in C++ is that anything not 0 is treated as true. Why is this relevant? Because C++ doesn't know what an integer is by how we think about it--we create that meaning, all it holds is the shell and rules for what that means. It knows what bits are though, that which make up an integer.
1 as an integer is loosely represented in bits, say an 8-bit signed int as 0000 0001. Many times what we see visually is a bit of a lie, -1 is a much more common way to represent it because of the signed nature of 'integer'. 1 really can't mean true proper, why? Because it's NOT operation is 1111 1110. That's a really major issue for a boolean. When we talk about a boolean, it's just 1 bit--it's really simple, 0 is false and 1 is true. All the logic operations hold as trivial. This is why '-1' should be designated as 'true' for integers (signed). 1111 1111 NOT'ed becomes 0000 0000---the logic holds and we're good. Unsigned ints is a little bit tricky and were a lot more commonly used in the past--where 1 means true because it's easy to imply the logic that 'anything not 0 is true'.
That's the explanation. I say the accepted answer here is wrong--there is no clear definition in the C/C++ definition. A boolean is a boolean, you can treat an integer as a boolean, but the fact the output is an integer says nothing about the operation actually being done is bitwise.
It happened because of the Relational Operators in your printf statement.
Operator == and operator !=
Since (0 == 0) holds true so, it gives a value 1
whereas, (0 != 0) doesn't hold true so, gives a value 0 .
I think I might have found the perfect solution to your problem.
Yes, 0 and any non-zero number are False and True respectively. Though there is no boolean data type in C.
But this is not the problem, the actual problem is how you are dealing with the modification of variable a in the your code :
int a = 16;
while (a--){
printf("%d\n", a);
}
When the compiler comes to the while (condition) statement, first the value of a is read by the compiler for the condition, then the arithmetic operation takes place, in this case,
a = a - 1 / a -= 1. So in the end there will be a case when a = 1 and the condition satisfies and after the arithmetic operation a-- which leads to a = 0, the print statement prints a as 0.
The above scenario depends on whether you use --a or a--. These two statements are read by the compiler in the order they are written.
For --a first the operation is performed on a then its value is read and vice-versa for the other.
So for case --a when a = 1 first the operation is done i.e a = a - 1 / a -= 1 and then a is evaluated for the condition, which then comes out to be Falsy as a = 0. Try the code below :
int a = 16;
while (--a){
printf("%d\n", a); // prints numbers from 15 to 1 as intended
}
OR deal with the modification of a inside the while loop block.
int a = 16;
while(a){
a = a - 1; // or a -= 1
printf("%d\n", a); // also prints numbers from 15 to 1 as intended
}
My understanding of this is as follows. In C, the ! operator returns 0 if it is given a nonzero value and returns a nonzero value if it is given 0.
Say you have this little snippet of C code:
int y = 0;
int z = !y;
What value will go into z? Does it simply take !0 to be 1? Is it system dependent? Does the C standard dictate what is supposed to happen? I ran into these questions while doing some homework earlier tonight dealing with bitwise 2's-complement integer manipulation. I got a certain problem to work, but I'm sort of scratching my head as to why it works. Thanks a lot for any info!
Truth values "generated by" C are always 0 or 1.
It is true (heh) that a non-zero expression is generally considered "true" in if and so on, but when the language itself needs to generate a truth value it uses 0 for false and 1 for true.
Since the ! operator is a logical operator, it will always result in 0 or 1.
So in your case, z will be set to 1.
Update: See this FAQ entry for more discussion, that's what I had in mind with the "generated by" wording. Amazingly, it even has the same pun (I did not look this entry up before writing my answer). Not sure if this is an indication of me having a good sense of humor, or not.
The result of an unary-expression with the ! operator is an int with value 0 or 1.
The result of the logical negation
operator ! is 0 if the value of its
operand compares unequal to 0, 1 if
the value of its operand compares
equal to 0. The result has type int.
The expression !E is equivalent to
(0==E).
From The C Standard (n1124) section 6.5.3.3.
Although I wouldn't have written it myself, what is the expected result of the following statement where A (guaranteed to zero or positive integer) is greater than 1?
return A || 1;
In many languages, I would expect A to be returned, unless the value of A is zero, in which case 1 would be.
I don't have my C book to hand, but I note that in reality, the value 1 always seems to be returned. Is this a result of compiler optimisation or given the potential ambiguity of the expression, is it that the return value is non-deterministic?
The standard says
The || operator shall yield 1 if either of its operands compare unequal to 0; otherwise, it yields 0. The result has type int.
See section 6.5.14 of the standard.
The expected result is YES (or true)
|| operator returns true value if at least one of its operands is true (2nd operand in your code is obviously true)
This is straight C (no Objective-C involved). It will always return 1.
In C, the result of ||, &&, or ! is always 0 or 1, never any other non-zero value, regardless of the values of the operands. That means your A || 1 will always yield 1.
with C-based languages any nonzero value is true(represented by 1). And if your A is zero it will check the other comparisons if it's an OR comparison
Suffice to say, in your example, whatever the value of A is, will always return 1 even if you are using || 2. with 2 being nonzero, when performed with logical operator OR, will always return true(represented by 1)
I believe that the compiler will optimize and not even examine the value of A. Can someone confirm? I was under the impression that with A&&0, A||1, and A||0 (=A&&1), the compiler saves time by recognizing that the expression can be simplified to 0, 1, or A respectively.