RE: notted boolean expressions (was: output specs and indicators)

just so I'm clear, (so far, what I originally thought was right, I think
was right)

not *in10 and *in11 and *in12

is the same as

*in11 and not *in10 and *in12

is the same as

*in11 and *in12 and not *in10

right?

so, it doesn't matter where the not is, it applys to, and only to, the
boolean expression directly to the right of it.

(although, for emphasis, i'd use parens too)

rick

------original message--------
That's what I thought (after your original comments) but never thought
about NOT being unary.
Good point!

I guess Indicators have, once again, confused me. LOL!

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Mildenberger
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:25 PM
To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
Subject: RE: notted boolean expressions (was: output specs and
indicators)


NOT is a unary operator and is performed prior to the AND.  See the
operator precedence section in the RPG Reference.


               if           NOT *IN99 and *IN98 and *IN97
 Is the same as this...
               if           (NOT *IN99) and *IN98 and *IN97

You can test if you want but I know it's correct :)

Scott Mildenberger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cozzi [mailto:cozzi@rpgiv.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:28 PM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: notted boolean expressions (was: output specs and
> indicators)
>
>
> Well????
> Maybe not. :)
> NOT is supposed to be done last, but... I haven't had the need to test

> is, since I'm always using parens "to be certain" the logic is the way

> I think it should be.
>
> So, what we're asking is this....
>
>               if           NOT *IN99 and *IN98 and *IN97
> The same as...
>               if           NOT (*IN99 and *IN98 and *IN97)
>
> Or the same as this...
>               if           (NOT *IN99) and *IN98 and *IN97
>
> I suppose a test is in order.