01-17-2013, 01:31 PM
The second and third aren't the same. The third means only one of them can be true. If more than one is true the filter will return false. The second means that at least one must be true, but more than one can be true.
We can't do the thing you are talking about, not at least using the scheme it currently uses, which are boolean logic type operations, not counters. It's not actually counting how many are true or false, it's using boolean AND, OR, and XOR operations to create a bitmask where one bit represents each of the four filters. It then just sees if the resulting value is zero or non-zero.
So it would take a fairly significant change to do that.
Keep in mind that you can put the common logic of these actions into a global action and invoke that, passing it parameters to tell it what to do. So you could probably minimize the redundancy pretty significantly.
We can't do the thing you are talking about, not at least using the scheme it currently uses, which are boolean logic type operations, not counters. It's not actually counting how many are true or false, it's using boolean AND, OR, and XOR operations to create a bitmask where one bit represents each of the four filters. It then just sees if the resulting value is zero or non-zero.
So it would take a fairly significant change to do that.
Keep in mind that you can put the common logic of these actions into a global action and invoke that, passing it parameters to tell it what to do. So you could probably minimize the redundancy pretty significantly.
Dean Roddey
Explorans limites defectum
Explorans limites defectum