Parenthesis question

[outsource]

Hello,Support!

Could you please suggest the correct usage of the parenthesis,double (()) or single (),for the || statement?

Thank you!

[sledge]

This is logic101.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/symbolic/parentheses.php

Are you asking is ( a||b||c ) or (( a||b) ||c ) or (a||(b||c)) ? These would result in all the same output.

if you know C happens 90% of the time, but b&a are the remaining 10%, then you want to go with ( c||b||a )...

modern compilers use "short circuit evaluation"... so if c is true, there's no need to look at b and a.

Can you post something concrete?

This is very generic to any language, and not NT.

[outsource]

This is logic101.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/symbolic/parentheses.php

Are you asking is ( a||b||c ) or (( a||b) ||c ) or (a||(b||c)) ? These would result in all the same output.

if you know C happens 90% of the time, but b&a are the remaining 10%, then you want to go with ( c||b||a )...

modern compilers use "short circuit evaluation"... so if c is true, there's no need to look at b and a.

Can you post something concrete?

This is very generic to any language, and not NT.

Hi,sledge,

No,I don't know which one is more frequent.Two volume bars involved,say bar.a and bar.b.So I want either for the signal, whichever appears first.There are some extra conditions,as well.In the end it's like:

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&(bar.a || bar.b)
)
The thing is I was warned one time to be careful using () in the conditions,and provided with the sample with the double(()) surrounded the conditions with the || statement.I actually see no difference.I might be wrong though

[sledge]

Hi,sledge,

No,I don't know which one is more frequent.Two volume bars involved,say bar.a and bar.b.So I want either for the signal, whichever appears first.There are some extra conditions,as well.In the end it's like:

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&(bar.a || bar.b)
)
The thing is I was warned one time to be careful using () in the conditions,and provided with the sample with the double(()) surrounded the conditions with the || statement.I actually see no difference.I might be wrong though

if none of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars is true then (bar.a||bar.b) doesn't matter.

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&(bar.a || bar.b)
)

if all of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars are true -- and bar.a OR bar.b then you are good..

----

now if you said:

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&bar.a || bar.b)

then any of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars/bar.a can be false, and if bar.b is true - you are good.




Well, it's late... so I'm 99.9% sure... best to run a test

[outsource]

if none of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars is true then (bar.a||bar.b) doesn't matter.

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&(bar.a || bar.b)
)

if all of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars are true -- and bar.a OR bar.b then you are good..

----

now if you said:

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&bar.a || bar.b)

then any of ooohs/aaahs/jewels/cars/bar.a can be false, and if bar.b is true - you are good.




Well, it's late... so I'm 99.9% sure... best to run a test

And what about this?

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&((bar.a || bar.b))
)

[sledge]

And what about this?

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&((bar.a || bar.b))
)

the inner (bar.a || bar.b) goes away... irrelevant...

at least I hope... haven't tried to defy death like that in many years...

adding !/~/NOT in front of ( a||b) results in even more fun time... hehe

[koganam]

And what about this?

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&((bar.a || bar.b))
)

Redundant brackets. Brackets only need to enclose what is needed to isolate the condition.

[outsource]

Thanks,sledge and koganam!Thank you guys, I got it.

[outsource]

adding !/~/NOT in front of ( a||b) results in even more fun time... hehe

If(ooohs
&& aaahs
&& jewels
&& cars
&&(bar.a || bar.b)
&&!(zapped == 0)
)

Really?What happens with the last one then?

[NinjaTrader_ZacharyG]

Hello outsource,

For this condition to be true:

1. aaahs must be true AND
2. jewels must be true AND
3. cars must be true AND
4. bar.a must be true OR bar.b must be true AND
5. zapped must NOT EQUAL 0

For further information about C# logical operators, please take a look at this link: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/csharp..._operators.htm

[outsource]

Hello outsource,

For this condition to be true:

1. aaahs must be true AND
2. jewels must be true AND
3. cars must be true AND
4. bar.a must be true OR bar.b must be true AND
5. zapped must NOT EQUAL 0

For further information about C# logical operators, please take a look at this link: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/csharp..._operators.htm

Hi Zachary,

zapped is IntSeries exposed as ''0''.what`s wrong with it?

That would be more correct:

zapped[0] == 0

[NinjaTrader_ZacharyG]

Hello outsource,

You have not mentioned that zapped was of type IntSeries.

zapped[0] would be correct if you are wanting to get the current value of zapped and compare it to 0.

[outsource]

Hello outsource,

You have not mentioned that zapped was of type IntSeries.

zapped[0] would be correct if you are wanting to get the current value of zapped and compare it to 0.

Sorry,my bad.

so then it will negate the:

&&!(zapped[0] == 0)

this way,right?

[NinjaTrader_ZacharyG]

Hello outsource,

The syntax you have provided is comparing zapped[0] (the current value of zapped) to 0.

If this is true (zapped[0] == 0), the exclamation point is making it NOT true.

So the following statement, !(zapped[0] == 0), will be true if zapped[0] is NOT 0.

Example:

if (!(zapped[0] == 0))
     Print("Hello world!"); // this will only print if zapped[0] is not 0

[bltdavid]

Sorry,my bad.

so then it will negate the:

&&!(zapped[0] == 0)

this way,right?

While what you have is certainly acceptable to the compiler, I would recommend you use the appropriate relational operator to perform the desired comparison.

Why? Because this code,

&& (zapped[0] != 0)

is easier to read than this code,

&&!(zapped[0] == 0)

See here for some examples:

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/csharp/csharp_relational_operators.htm