if(true) - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
nonsense
It's silly to try to guess what motivated a person to comment out a part of the code and not the fact that this part of the code was not transferred from another project
guess ))))
true orfalse is clear.
What do you think
if(1)
?
Thebooltype is used to store the boolean valuestrue orfalse, with a numeric representation of 1 or 0.
Machine code consists of 1 and 0
1 true
0 false
The bool type is a wrapper over an integer type.
Strange design, what does it mean?
Maybe there is a hidden meaning that I don't know?
there is no hidden meaning. The owner of the code was just experimenting with something and forgot to delete it.
I'm sure the compiler simply ignores such an entry. It is the same whether it is there or not.
The only sense may make sense if the programmer is paid for each code character. :))
I'm sure the compiler simply ignores such an entry. It's the same whether it's there or not.
It will delete it at the compilation stage,
I'm somewhere in the thread about OOP, I think, laid out the test - a test of the file size .ex5 , a large constant string on the condition was assigned, if the condition is false at compile time, then the .ex5 will be about the size of the constant string less, if true, then the .ex5 will be a few KB more
There is no sense in it. It's just that the owner of the code was experimenting with something and forgot to delete it.
I'm sure the compiler simply ignores such an entry. It is the same thing whether you have it or not.
The only sense may make sense if the programmer is paid for each code character. :))
Well, piss off. Paid in character as well?
By the way, the compiler doesn't know how to ignore an entry. Prerogative of the interpreter.
Then again, why wouldn't I use the perpetual loop? Nah, Nikolai, you're wrong.
Well, piss off. Paid in character as well?
By the way, the compiler doesn't know how to ignore an entry. It's the interpreter's prerogative.
Why can't it?
Why can't he?
Not trained
Then again, why wouldn't I use the perpetual loop? No, Nikolai, you're wrong.
You can't build an eternal loop on if(true). And while(true) is quite another story, which I actively use. More precisely, I prefer for(;;) because of shorter notation.
By the way, the compiler does not know how to ignore an entry. It's the interpreter's prerogative.
Yes, it can.
On the contrary, the compiler has a much higher level of optimization, as it is not constrained by time.
Again, why wouldn't I use the perpetual loop?
Speaking of the perpetual cycle, an interesting entry came to mind as well, which may be confusing to understand ))
for(;;) { }Added.Oh, Nikolai is ahead of the curve ))