Does Unity use short circuiting for || and && operators?

Greetings, I have just read this article in particular here:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4820610/is-relying-on-short-circuiting-safe-in-net

This makes me wonder if Unity follows this exact pattern, and if I can use this in my code, to do all inexpensive checks first and if they pass do the more expensive ones:

Code (CSharp):

1. // Will this stop at CheapCheck() if it evaluates to true?
2. bool example1 = CheapCheck() || ExpensiveCheck();
3.  
4. // Will this continue from CheapCheck() if it evaluates to true?
5. bool example2 = CheapCheck() && ExpensiveCheck();

Thank you very much in advance for helping out. ;w;

 

Unity uses C# and since it's a C# and not a Unity thing, the answer is: Yes. Here are relevant quotes from the C# documentation:

Spoiler: Conditional logical AND operator &&

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/do...l-operators#conditional-logical-and-operator-

Spoiler: Conditional logical OR operator ||

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/do...al-operators#conditional-logical-or-operator-

 

Thank you. I am also a little concerned since apparently the C#-level/.NET-standard outside Unity is higher and it also seems Unity perhaps will use less of that and more of its own gonig forward with regards to the DOTS-oriented technological system.

 

The more common use of short-circuit is to fake a series of IF's where the early one's need to be true to avoid an error in the latter:

Code (CSharp):

1. if(i>=0 && i<A.Length && A[i]>0) x=A[i];
2.  
3. if(p==null || p.idDead()) p=getNewTarget();

If you want to check in your examples, add some Debug lines and see if they print.

 

The answer seems to be no -- it would if it's C# was completely standard, but it is not.

Code (CSharp):

1.                 if ((health != null) && CheckSight(collider))
2.                 {
3.                     health.BeHitByPhysicalAttack(damage);
4.                 }

Will call CheckSight(collider) even if health is null (tested, yes, it does).

A bit surprising and disappointing when I found out -- but not too surprising, since I already know Unity doesn't support updated .NET standards, so that some data structures are not available.

 

Maybe this is more an issue of Unity's fake null?

 

This conclusion doesn't make much sense

First of all Unity does use standard C#, just not the latest standard. The Unity ecosystem does have some counter-intuitive structures, however they are purely implemented though normal C#. So as exiguous said, it's probably the overloaded == operator for UnityEngine.Object derived types.

We don't know what "health" is in your code. If it's a type derived from UnityEngine.Object the overloaded == operator should apply. However if it's an interface type it would not.

 

In other words, your test probably gave funny results because the first clause was too complicated -- !=null is tricky in Unity. For a real test try:

Code (CSharp):

1. int n=8;
2. if(n>10 && checkSight(collider)) print("will never get here");
3.