Ternary Operator not working in some ways

[cramaboule]

Hi I am not sure where to put some bugs or... if it is a real bug...

Example 1:

Script that is NOT working:

$sWww &= $aXlArray[$i][30] & ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '') ? ('</a>') : ('') & '</p>' & @CRLF
ConsoleWrite('->'&'$aXlArray[$i][30]'&$aXlArray[$i][30]& @CRLF&$sWww & @CRLF)

but Working this way:

Example 2:

$sWww &= $aXlArray[$i][30]
$sWww &= ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '') ? ('</a>') : ('') & '</p>' & @CRLF
ConsoleWrite('->'&'$aXlArray[$i][30]'&$aXlArray[$i][30]& @CRLF&$sWww & @CRLF)

_Iif() was working perfectly with Example 1, why Ternary Operator is not working the same way ?

C.

[jguinch]

I suggest you to add parentheses around the whole ternary operation.

[Melba23]

cramaboule,

Just enclose the ternary within parentheses. At the moment AutoIt is parsing the entire first section:

$aXlArray[$i][30] & ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '')

as the requirement for the ternary to be True. So this should work - it does when I test it using dummy variables:

$sWww &= $aXlArray[$i][30] & ( ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '') ? ('</a>') : ('') ) & '</p>' & @CRLF

M23

[cramaboule]

cramaboule,

Just enclose the ternary within parentheses. At the moment AutoIt is parsing the entire first section:

$aXlArray[$i][30] & ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '')

as the requirement for the ternary to be True. So this should work - it does when I test it using dummy variables:

$sWww &= $aXlArray[$i][30] & ( ($aXlArray[$i][31] <> '') ? ('</a>') : ('') ) & '</p>' & @CRLF

M23

 

 

Yes,

Thank you M23 it is working like that !

C.

[jguinch]

[TonyDuBass]

I'm not having the same luck. In the old version worked like this:

(($WinPos[0] + $WinPos[2]) > @DesktopWidth _
      Or $WinPos[0] < 0 _
      Or $WinPos[1] < 0 _
      Or ($WinPos[1] + $WinPos[3]) > (@DesktopHeight - (@DesktopHeight * 0.085))) _
      And Not BitAND(WinGetState($hWindow), 32) ? _
      WinMove($hWindow, Default, (@DesktopWidth/2) - (658/2), (@DesktopHeight/2) - (440/2), 658, 440, 1)

 

I tried to use the parenthesis but I can not work in the new version writing the code below:

(((($WinPos[0] + $WinPos[2]) > @DesktopWidth _
      Or $WinPos[0] < 0 _
      Or $WinPos[1] < 0 _
      Or ($WinPos[1] + $WinPos[3]) > (@DesktopHeight - (@DesktopHeight * 0.085))) _ ;(@DesktopHeight * 0.085) é a largura do menu iniciar.
      And Not BitAND(WinGetState($hWindow), 32)) ? _
      WinMove($hWindow, Default, (@DesktopWidth/2) - (658/2), (@DesktopHeight/2) - (440/2), 658, 440, 1) : "")

[kylomas]

TonyDuBass,

Two ways to get around this.  One, turn off the syntax check after your code is stable like... 

#AutoIt3Wrapper_Run_AU3Check=n

#include <GUIConstantsEx.au3>

local $hWindow = guicreate('',3000,3000,10,10)
guisetstate()

local $winpos = WinGetPos($hWindow)

(((($WinPos[0] + $WinPos[2]) > @DesktopWidth _
      Or $WinPos[0] < 0 _
      Or $WinPos[1] < 0 _
      Or ($WinPos[1] + $WinPos[3]) > (@DesktopHeight - (@DesktopHeight * 0.085))) _ ;(@DesktopHeight * 0.085) é a largura do menu iniciar.
      And Not BitAND(WinGetState($hWindow), 32)) ? _
      WinMove($hWindow, Default, (@DesktopWidth/2) - (658/2), (@DesktopHeight/2) - (440/2), 658, 440, 1) : "")

while 1
    switch guigetmsg()
        case $gui_event_close
            Exit
    EndSwitch
WEnd

Two, cause assignment like...

#include <GUIConstantsEx.au3>

local $hWindow = guicreate('',3000,3000,10,10)
guisetstate()

local $winpos = WinGetPos($hWindow)

local $TmpVar = (((($WinPos[0] + $WinPos[2]) > @DesktopWidth _
      Or $WinPos[0] < 0 _
      Or $WinPos[1] < 0 _
      Or ($WinPos[1] + $WinPos[3]) > (@DesktopHeight - (@DesktopHeight * 0.085))) _ ;(@DesktopHeight * 0.085) é a largura do menu iniciar.
      And Not BitAND(WinGetState($hWindow), 32)) ? _
      WinMove($hWindow, Default, (@DesktopWidth/2) - (658/2), (@DesktopHeight/2) - (440/2), 658, 440, 1) : "")

while 1
    switch guigetmsg()
        case $gui_event_close
            Exit
    EndSwitch
WEnd

kylomas

[guinness]

My advice is try not to abuse this feature if you're not willing to debug.

Edited January 10, 2015 by guinness

[kylomas]

@guinness - What do you mean?  The only other option I see is to try to place the ternary expression inside of the WinMove function.  Please advise...

[guinness]

My point is don't use the ternary operator as a direct if...else replacement, which is the case here. My last comment was aimed more towards the OP, as clearly they didn't try the traditional approach beforehand to see if it's working.

Edited January 10, 2015 by guinness

[kylomas]

@guinness - Thanks, was hoping that that you saw something I did not know.

[iamtheky]

My point is don't use the ternary operator as a direct if...else replacement

 

 

Most examples I see in learning ternary, are how to rewrite if else statements.  Why do you recommend not using it as a direct replacement?  I was starting just for the cleanliness, and in reducing line count for sport.

...and isnt every ternary const declaration a direct if else replacement?

Edited January 10, 2015 by boththose

[TonyDuBass]

Really thanks to your help, kylomas. By the end I used your second suggestion, to don't turn off the syntax check.

Generally I use the portable version of AutoIt and is an older version. I'm not used to this way of using the ternary operator.

 

Although I have used the ternary like if...else, the ternary has a faster response than if...else.

But I think I ended up using the ternary in this case just to satisfy my self. 

[guinness]

Most examples I see in learning ternary, are how to rewrite if else statements.  Why do you recommend not using it as a direct replacement?  I was starting just for the cleanliness, and in reducing line count for sport.

 

...and isnt every ternary const declaration a direct if else replacement?

I (and others) have mentioned this before in the developers section of the AutoIt Forum, but it's usually met with a response of "this is AutoIt and not (insert popular high level language) e.g. C#". So I refer you to posts which pretty much sum up what has been said in the past and are general for all programming languages.

Here >> https://agiletribe.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/21-avoid-ternary-conditional-operator/ and here >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/4512684

Edited January 10, 2015 by guinness

[iamtheky]

https://agiletribe.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/21-avoid-ternary-conditional-operator/

Isnt that really only saying "you should avoid ternary in instances where just an IF statement would suffice (rather than an if..else)?" and,

"If the condition is simple, and the results expressions are simple, then the ternary operator is OK"

 

 

would make me believe the OP is using it suitably.

my thoughts on it so far have gone along the lines of an "if statement that has value":          http://stackoverflow.com/a/160887

 

With the links and no explanation I still dont understand your opposition to the usage above, is something happening in the guts that makes it better/worse?

Edited January 10, 2015 by boththose

[guinness]

Let me re-phrase, is the OP's code readable? If so, help them with their ternary problem, as you clearly can read the code without having to break it down. Otherwise if you need to separate the parts into something manageable, then I feel this "discussion" has reached its course.

Edited January 10, 2015 by guinness

[iamtheky]

 

Let me re-phrase, is the OP's code readable? If so, help them with their ternary problem, as you clearly can read the code without having to break it down.

 

So....readability?  You can only speak in links and condescension?

[guinness]

So....readability?  You can only speak in links and condescension?

I suspect you didn't read the article I linked to, as it clearly mentioned readability being an important factor when substituting an if...else for ternary.

Any further questions you have on ternary usage should either be created in a new post in Chat or the Developer section (the later being more appropriate).

Edit: If you have an issue with my post, please take the appropriate action required.

Edited January 10, 2015 by guinness

[czardas]

Without having read any fine details, I have gotten into the habit of using ternary when I am only interested in the outcome or return value. I generally use a conventional If statement when I simply need to run a process. There is no particular reason, but doing so seems to make the code easier to read from my perspective. I would also have used an If statement in the code in #6 because I don't see the relevance of the second return value. Is the empty string meant to be some kind of patch?

Edited January 11, 2015 by czardas

[TonyDuBass]

when I used the ternary operator, was only seeking a better aesthetics to the code. Because prior to version 3.3.10.0, the ternary could simply be written as: "(1 exp exp 2: exp 3)" ... Now I have to write the same code assigning the value to a variable.