Yes. bitwise-or of the modulo(remainder). It is only zero if both modulos are zero.
When using it on bools you have to be a bit careful, as (1 | 2) is 0011, and that is stored in boolean. true is 0001, so while (1 | 2) evalutes to true, it's not equal to true in some way. Here it's fine, but be aware. Negating with ! (boolean not) "normalizes" it to 0000 or 0001 though. ~ would be the bitwise not.
bitwise-or may be faster as it does not branch (both sides are always evaluated), as opposed to boolean or. But don't rely on that.
Try to apply to some Chinease company, bro! You will be a millionaire, because they pay for a volume of code. I worked with Chinease code a few years ago. Even now I feel that it's better to get psychological attention :)
happens xD
what the actual f*ck?
Nothing Personal bruv :)
cool
Yes. bitwise-or of the modulo(remainder). It is only zero if both modulos are zero.
When using it on bools you have to be a bit careful, as (1 | 2) is 0011, and that is stored in boolean. true is 0001, so while (1 | 2) evalutes to true, it's not equal to true in some way. Here it's fine, but be aware. Negating with ! (boolean not) "normalizes" it to 0000 or 0001 though. ~ would be the bitwise not.
bitwise-or may be faster as it does not branch (both sides are always evaluated), as opposed to boolean or. But don't rely on that.
is this the bitwise OR operator?
nice man good job ?? !!
lol?
😆
it's really clever but indentation is not very good.
nice coding
Try to apply to some Chinease company, bro! You will be a millionaire, because they pay for a volume of code. I worked with Chinease code a few years ago. Even now I feel that it's better to get psychological attention :)
The OOP we deserve
yeah it is inefficient (and unreadable). Just wanted to make it weird
lol df
Loading more items...