Menu
Please don't look at the condition as they are here to ease the understanding of the behavior
Why does result equals true ?
boolean result = false && (false)?false:true;
I know we can solve the issue doing:
boolean result = false && (false?false:true);
But I am just wondering why the first syntax is incorrect, looks like the '?' operator has more priority over '&&'
369
There are many potential causes of a false positive result, including the following: Mislabelling at the point of collection and at the point of processing. This can be guarded against by robust processes such as rigorous sampling and laboratory protocols. Contamination during sampling and processing.
In the case of a false negative, the test passes when a bug or security vulnerability is in fact present or the functionality is not working as it should. The more times testing tools and strategies give false negatives (as well as false positives), the less reliable and useful the results.
Some examples of false positives: A pregnancy test is positive, when in fact you aren't pregnant. A cancer screening test comes back positive, but you don't have the disease. A prenatal test comes back positive for Down's Syndrome, when your fetus does not have the disorder(1).
When you perform an at-home COVID-19 antigen test, and you get a positive result, the results are typically accurate. However, if you perform an at-home COVID-19 antigen test, you could get a false negative result. This means that the test may not detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is in your nasal swab sample.
The ternary conditional ( ?: ) has lower precedence than &&. So
boolean result = false && (false)?false:true;
(having unnecessary parentheses); is equivalent to
boolean result = (false && false) ? false : true;
Since (since false && false is false), this reduces to
boolean result = false ? false : true;
which, of course, is true.
73
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
