Im wondering why there is no logical xor operator ( ^^ ) ?

Using ^ works but its somewhat unbalanced.

-- Nicolas Repiquet

DeadCow wrote:
> Im wondering why there is no logical xor operator ( ^^ ) ?
> 
> Using ^ works but its somewhat unbalanced.
> 
> -- Nicolas Repiquet

Use != :)

 -- andy

"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> a écrit dans le message news: bjuaqj$2p63$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Use != :)
>
>   -- andy

True =)

Now its not unbalanced, its ugly !

-- Nicolas Repiquet

> DeadCow wrote:
> > Im wondering why there is no logical xor operator ( ^^ ) ?
> >
> > Using ^ works but its somewhat unbalanced.
> >
> > -- Nicolas Repiquet
>
> Use != :)
>

This is not the same when arguments are not already bool and if it is already bool, ^ would give the proper result... so why not add it?

DeadCow wrote:
> Im wondering why there is no logical xor operator ( ^^ ) ?
> 
> Using ^ works but its somewhat unbalanced.
> 
> -- Nicolas Repiquet
> 

there is no need for another boolean xor, you have to eval both sizes
and you have ^ or != already
(the only reason for && and || is they only eval one side if they can)

In article <bjv578$10m2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Wynn wrote:
> DeadCow wrote:
>> Im wondering why there is no logical xor operator ( ^^ ) ?
>> 
>> Using ^ works but its somewhat unbalanced.
>> 
>> -- Nicolas Repiquet
>> 
> 
> there is no need for another boolean xor, you have to eval both sizes
> and you have ^ or != already
> (the only reason for && and || is they only eval one side if they can)

There's one reason I can think of:

- There wouldn't be the periodical question "Why is there no ^^?" on the
  newsgroup
-> less time wasted explaining why it's not actually needed ;)

Another reason: consistency. (Although we're talking about C's descendant here -- I won't hold my breath. IMO it would be best to just get rid of most operators and replace them with member functions!)

Yet I wouldn't be too unhappy if logical xor was implemented -- just for the heck of it.

-Antti

> There's one reason I can think of:
>
> - There wouldn't be the periodical question "Why is there no ^^?" on the
>   newsgroup

Technically, || and && are not logical operators but control flow operators, similar to "a ? b : c"

(x || y)  =>  (x ? true : y)
(x && y) => (x ? y : false)

It is more clear in Ada, where these operators are called "short-circuit
control forms", and have more descriptive names:
|| => "or else"
&& => "and then"