BitOr..No BitOr-Talking

[Holger]

So I often heard that styles should be 'BitOr'ed but I can't see any difference between "+" and "BitOr"!?

Maybe someone of you could explain me why the result is the same

Here's my sample:

#include "GUIConstants.au3"
Global $DS_MODALFRAME = 0x80

Msgbox(0,"compare1",$DS_MODALFRAME + $WS_POPUP + $WS_CAPTION + $WS_SYSMENU & @LF & @LF & BitOr($DS_MODALFRAME,BitOr($WS_POPUP,BitOr($WS_CAPTION,$WS_SYSMENU))))

Msgbox(0,"compare2",0x1 + $WS_VSCROLL + $WS_BORDER + $WS_TABSTOP + $WS_GROUP & @LF & @LF & BitOr(0x1,BitOr($WS_VSCROLL,BitOr($WS_BORDER,BitOr($WS_TABSTOP,$WS_GROUP)))))

Msgbox(0,"compare3",$GUI_DISABLE + $GUI_SHOW & @LF & @LF & BitOr($GUI_DISABLE,$GUI_SHOW))

Msgbox(0,"not really an example;-)",$CBS_DROPDOWNLIST +$SS_GRAYRECT & @LF & @LF & BitOr($CBS_DROPDOWNLIST,$SS_GRAYRECT))

The only reason I see is that what Valik said - that they are stored/used then as doubles, and that means they are 'larger'...

Or can somebody give me an example where an error occurs, I mean where styles which should be together has a different result than adding.

And I mean not such a sample like "BitOr(3,5)".

I don't know a control where are the stylenrs. 3 and 5 used the same time...

I know there was a discussion about a new BitOr-function, is it maybe possible to change the existing 'BitOr'-function to something like this?:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// BitOR()
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

AUT_RESULT AutoIt_Script::F_BitOR(VectorVariant &vParams, Variant &vResult)
{
   int  int i, result = vParams[0].nValue(), iNumParams = vParams.size();
    
   for (i=1; i<iNumParams; i++)
      result |= vParams[i].nValue();
   vResult = result;

   return AUT_OK;

} // BitOR()

and an AND-function like:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// BitAND()
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

AUT_RESULT AutoIt_Script::F_BitAND(VectorVariant &vParams, Variant &vResult)
{
   int  i, result = vParams[0].nValue(), iNumParams = vParams.size();

   for (i=1; i<iNumParams; i++)
      result &= vParams[i].nValue();
   vResult = result;
   
   return AUT_OK;

} // BitAND()

Maybe I see this a little bit to easy

Edited June 16, 2004 by Holger

[Valik]

The styles have to pass through a 32 bit integer internally somewhere. I think that using hex notation also passes the numbers through a 32 bit int so that the variable in AutoIt has the correct bits set. Something that doesn't happen when using the decimal representation since that goes straight into a double. The last time I looked at GuiConstants, I noticed most/all the styles were in hex notation, which should mean it's not necessary to BitOR them. It's just much safer that way.

[Holger]

Thanks Valik and Larry for the information

Hmmm...I see... the changed BitOr-function returns the right value:

BitOr(1 ,2, 8, 32, 64)

returns 107

Good night

Edited June 17, 2004 by Holger

[Jon]

Also adding them together only works if each style is a new "binary" number like 1, 2,4,8,16 etc. Some styles are already combinations of other styles and therefore break when you simply add them together.

[jpm]

In the GuiConstants the value are express in 0x... .

So I you see 0,1,2,4,8 digit you can sum up.

But for instance $WS_CAPTION cannot be added with $WS_BORDER they need to be Ored. In fact in this particular case $WS_BORDER is include in $WS_CAPTION so $WS_CAPTION is enough because it include WS_BORDER

[Holger]

Ok, you're are all right.. I see

But I think at the moment I have no problems anymore cause I use the changed BitOr-function so I can BitOr max. 255 different styles

And that should be enough

Like:

BitOr($WS_BORDER,$WS_CAPTION,$WS_GROUP,...)

Thanks all for the samples an information

Regards Holger

[Jon]

Ok, you're are all right.. I see 

But I think at the moment I have no problems anymore cause I use the changed BitOr-function so I can BitOr max. 255 different styles   

And that should be enough 

Like:

BitOr($WS_BORDER,$WS_CAPTION,$WS_GROUP,...)

Thanks all for the samples an information 

Regards Holger

I'm going to add that too, in addition to the new operators.