Syntactic sugar for short-circuit-and-assign

Asked Nov 10 '16 at 13:52

Active Nov 10 '16 at 13:52

Viewed 49 times

Probably duplicate though I couldn't find a reference.

Similar quotation had been asked: Short circuit on |= and &= assignment operators in C# for a different language

bitwise-and-assign

bool bRes;
bRes = bRes & SomeFunc()

bool bRes;
bRes &= SomeFunc()

bool bRes;
bRes = bRes && SomeFunc()

bool bRes;
???

Is there a syntactic sugar for short-circuit-and-assign?

edited May 23 '17 at 11:53

Community

asked Nov 10 '16 at 13:52

idanshmu

I'm almost certain I remember seeing this before. It had a lengthy discussion about the topic too. – Carcigenicate Nov 10 '16 at 13:53
Yes. It is very likely. Couldn't find it though. – idanshmu Nov 10 '16 at 13:54
2

wouldnt a `bool bool::operator &&= ( bool)` need to evaluate its parameter, making the shortcircuiting impossible? – 463035818_is_not_a_number Nov 10 '16 at 13:56
1

@Carcigenicate Did you mean this one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2488406/why-doesnt-c-have-or-for-booleans – Leon Nov 10 '16 at 13:56
Found it, but it's a discussion of why such syntax doesn't exist (in Java): http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2324549/why-doesnt-java-have-compound-assignment-versions-of-the-conditional-and-and-co – Carcigenicate Nov 10 '16 at 13:56
OK great. so closing this one I guess.. – idanshmu Nov 10 '16 at 13:57