AGH. Silly mistakes

[afuna]

In my attempt to conquer Bug 2344: Default View/Default filters should be default when adding from hover menu, I wrote this line of code:

$success ||= $filter->add_row( userid => $u->id )

What I thought it said:

* add this user to the filter
* once you've added the user, check whether it was successful, and keep a running tab on the status so you'll know in the end whether everything succeeded or not

What it was actually saying:
* once you've successfully done one thing (e.g., added the user to a filter or subscribed to that user), we're done. We don't need to do anything else (in this case, adding a user to the filter).

So now I've rewritten it more properly as:

$success = $filter->add_row( userid => $targetu->userid ) && $success;

(I got the boolean logic initially wrong too *rueful*)


This was an entire afternoon's worth of frustration (whyyyyyyy isn't it adding the user to the filter? Why doesn't it print out any of my warn statements within add_row? I didn't realize I wasn't calling it at all), solved with one of those flashes of insight you get when you get up and grab a glass of water and happen to reread your code when you get back.

Comments

[afuna]

Oops, yeah typo. I meant bitwise & versus boolean &&. Though now with your distinction of bitwise boolean and logical boolean, I do see your point.

*thinks* I can see your point re: the success accumulator, but it wouldn't have occurred to me before now to even think about it in those terms.

Usually I've seen "boolean operator" as versus "bitwise operator", but I'm seeing now how it's shorthanded, and the expanded "logical boolean" versus "bitwise boolean" makes sense to me now. (Also wrt bitwise, figuring out that "bitwise boolean" == treat each bit as a boolean, separately, versus "logical boolean" == treat the entire thing as one thing for looking at the true or false boolean).

No... worries? I guess? about whether I feel like you're trying to put me down? It can get frustrating to have something I already know explained to me (as in the comment over why Java doesn't have ||=, in the other thread), but this thread has me reconsidering bitwise operators (less "magic" now) and it's not like you can know what I already know, or don't, or am assuming, so it's cool.

[pne]

it's not like you can know what I already know, or don't, or am assuming

*nods*

And thanks for your last paragraph.

I had more to say but I couldn't think of a good way to express it.

<3

[afuna]

I just realized I didn't even thank you which... wow *facepalm* Thank you for helping to clarify booleans, and to disperse much of the magic surrounding it in my head, and thank you for taking the trouble to explain!

(WRT explaining, I think the hardest thing about explanations is that sometimes they *don't stop*. Not that you're guilty here, but lately I've been having a run of people explaining things to me unnecessarily and just not stopping, so I was already on edge and quick to go on the defensive, and that was unfair to you.

So *salutes* and thank you again for sharing your knowledge/ insight.)

[pne]

WRT explaining, I think the hardest thing about explanations is that sometimes they *don't stop*. [...] lately I've been having a run of people explaining things to me unnecessarily and just not stopping

If I ever do that, please tell me explicitly -- I don't always notice social cues, and not out of malice, either. Being "polite" in such a case would probably not help either of us.

thank you again for sharing your knowledge/ insight

I'm glad you found it helpful.

[afuna]

*salutes* Gotcha. I've gotten some practice with being direct in these situations, but mostly when given permission to do so, so thank you :-)