AND and OR operators

[Hasiva]

Hello.
It's probably a beginners' question, but can you make conditional branches with AND and OR operators in Ace? I specifically want to do some statements with switches, but a solution for normal variables would be appreciated too. I know you can make one condition after another for AND, but I believe there is probably more efficient solution, that's why I'm asking.

Sorry if this was asked before, I'm completly new to RPG Makers and this forum and I couldn't find the info about this anywhere.

 

[ovate]

It's possible for AND/ OR operators in conditional branch with this script by combining checks:
Conditional Branch+ https://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?threads/conditional-branch.63725/

 

[Hasiva]

Thanks for the info!

 

[Heirukichi]

Actually, even without that script, there is a "Script" option in the conditional branch Event Command, you can use that to place a code to evaluate.

 

[Shiro-chan]

$game_variables[x]>y or $game_switches[z]==true
$game_variables[x]>y and $game_switches[z]==true

Put things like this into the script option of your Conditional Branch.

 

[Hasiva]

$game_variables[x]>y or $game_switches[z]==true
$game_variables[x]>y and $game_switches[z]==true

Put things like this into the script option of your Conditional Branch.

Thank you, that's even better!
I knew you could do this probably by scripting or something. Man, I must start learning Ruby as quick as possible.

 

[Shiro-chan]

It helps to check the scriptcall collection threads. Problem is mainly that Conditional Branches have so many possibilities that they're not covered, so for those it's best to ask in the help thread.

Also note that I tried both "xor" and "nand" operators, and neither works (! for negative also does not btw), so you will have to be a tad clever with just "and" and "or".

 

[Heirukichi]

$game_variables[x]>y or $game_switches[z]==true
$game_variables[x]>y and $game_switches[z]==true

Just try to avoid using "and" or "or" and use "&&" or "||" respectively. Using and/or is bad coding etiquette.
On top of it, there is absolutely no need to compare a switch to a boolean value. Switches are boolean values by themselves.

($game_variables[x]>y) && $game_switches[z] # and
($game_variables[x]>y) || $game_switches[z] # or

This does the same thing while being shorter.

 

[Hasiva]

[...]Just try to avoid using "and" or "or" and use "&&" or "||" respectively. Using and/or is bad coding etiquette. [...]

Oh, in ruby you can use || and &&?
No worries, I'll be using this notation from now on then! ("and" and "or" looked too SQLish for me anyway.)

 

[Heirukichi]

Oh, in ruby you can use || and &&?

That syntax is the same for any programming language that I have ever used (except for Fortran). The main difference about them in ruby is operator precedence: "&&" has higher priority compared to "and" (similarly for "||" and "or"). If you want to know more about this you can take a look at the help file (F1 in your engine), these things are under Ruby Syntax.

However, just to give you a rough idea, what happens is this:

a && b or a || b = (a && b) || (a || b)

 

[Shiro-chan]

On top of it, there is absolutely no need to compare a switch to a boolean value. Switches are boolean values by themselves.

($game_variables[x]>y) && $game_switches[z] # and
($game_variables[x]>y) || $game_switches[z] # or

This does the same thing while being shorter.

So how do I short-write "switch is false" as the requirement?

 

[Heirukichi]

So how do I short-write "switch is false" as the requirement?

!$game_switches[x]

 

[Shiro-chan]

Nvm, it was clearly a typo.

 

[Heirukichi]

!($game_switches[x])

Well, using parenthesis does not bring any harm.

@Shiro-chan anyway, you should always be wary when writing in ruby. Ruby is easy to read, but sometimes it does nasty things.

Spoiler: If you want you can try this

puts(2+3) # -> 5
puts(2 + 3) # -> 5
puts(2+ 3) # -> if I am not wrong this is 5 as well
puts(2 +3) # -> ERROR

 

[Shiro-chan]

Yeah, I noticed that when personalising some scripts. Anyway, looks like I'll have to do some improvements in various scriptcalls. Thanks again for the lessons.