# Logical Question

## Logical Question

Is there any kind of bit operation or arithmetical trick that would allow me to do something like `integerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne == 0 ? otherIntegerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne == 0 ? 0 : 1 : 2` without so many expensive conditionals?

17:20, 25 June 2013

Like this?

`integerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne | otherIntegerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne + integerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne`

MN (talk)19:02, 25 June 2013

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

If there is no possibility that `integerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne == 1` and `otherIntegerWhichCouldOnlyHaveAValueOfZeroOrOne == 0`, or if you don't care, then a simple addition would work.

20:59, 25 June 2013

There is a chance that the first and second integers would add up to 1 in two different scenarios. I do care to avoid this because I was planning to use this in VCS segmentation. It would not be prudent to represent two very different situations by the same segment.

21:29, 25 June 2013

If you're using it for wall segmentation, it should be fine just adding. The chances of the closer one being triggered but not the further is quite rare (although it can happen, I admit).

22:03, 25 June 2013

If both wall checks be either 1 or 0 at the same time a vast majority of the time, what's the point of even having a second wall check?

22:41, 25 June 2013

Hang on, is this two forward wall checks, or one forward and one reverse?

I was thinking two forward, where obviously the check which extends further will also be triggered in 99% of cases where the one that extends less is triggered.

If this is one forward, one reverse then I think they should actually be in different segments.

22:47, 25 June 2013

Would this method work for multiple reverse wall checks?

22:53, 16 December 2013