# 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

Yes, I think that would work.

Thanks

19:58, 25 June 2013

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

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.

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