[RESOLVED] A more elegent way of checking if a whole bunch of if statements are true

This site is best viewed in a modern browser with JavaScript enabled.

[RESOLVED] A more elegent way of checking if a whole bunch of if statements are true

leke

Hi, I was just wondering if there was a more elegent way of checking if a whole bunch of if statements are true...

     

    var unityObjectValue1 = "n", unityObjectValue2 = "i", unityObjectValue3 = "space", unityObjectValue4 = "reg", unityObjectValue5 = "a", unityObjectValue6 = "s", unityObjectValue7 = "space", unityObjectValue8 = "la", unityObjectValue9 = "space", unityObjectValue10 = "homar", unityObjectValue11 = "o", unityObjectValue12 = "n"; 

// this part...
if( unityObjectValue1 == "n" && 
    unityObjectValue2 == "i" && 
    unityObjectValue3 == "space" && 
    unityObjectValue4 == "reg" && 
    unityObjectValue5 == "a" && 
    unityObjectValue6 == "s" && 
    unityObjectValue7 == "space" && 
    unityObjectValue8 == "la" && 
    unityObjectValue9 == "space" && 
    unityObjectValue10 == "homar" &&
    unityObjectValue11 == "o" && 
    unityObjectValue12 == "n")
{
    // destroy the mini game trigger object. 
    // exit the mini game. 
    // run the animation. 
    console.log("Matched.");
} 
else 
{
    console.log("Not Matched.");
}

Happy Yule

JMRKER

Have you considered something like this?

<script type="text/javascript">
  var unityObjectValue = ['n','i','space','reg','a','s','space','la','space','homar','o','n'];  // original
  var userValueOK      = ['n','i','space','reg','a','s','space','la','space','homar','o','n'];  // duplicate
  var userValueNotOK   = ['a','b','space','reg','c','d','space','la','space','homar','e','f'];  // not same

function checkUnity(O,T) {
  var flag = true;
  for (var i=0; i<O.length; i++) {
    if (O[i] != T[i]) { flag = false; }
  }
  return flag;
}
  if (checkUnity(unityObjectValue,userValueOK)) { console.log('Matched.'); } else { console.log('Not Matched'); }
  if (checkUnity(unityObjectValue,userValueNotOK)) { console.log('Matched.'); } else { console.log('Not Matched'); }
</script>

landar

Your method is not bad, it is just that in general, it is better not to use 'magic' values within the function code itself. JMRKER showed how you could define the values in an array where it is easily maintainable.

Since your checks all involve strings, could you just concatenate all of the input values and check against a master string? ie:

var master_string = "nispacereg.....etc"
var input_string = unityObjectValue1 + unityObjectValue2 + unityObjectValue3...etc
//note: you could also do the concatenation in a loop

then compare: if(input_string == masterstring)

root

what would help is if unityObjectValue was an array of nth values and then your code would look something like

var checks = ["n","i","space","reg","a","s","space","la","space","homar","o","n"];
for(c=0,testVar=false;c<checks.length;c++)
    testVar = unityObjectValue[c] == checks[c]? true : testVar;

if( testVar ){ 
    // we are true, do we do something?
   }else{
        // were false, do something?
        }

which is useful if you want to set a flag then do something if tru value has been reached.

you may want to use something different like

var checks = ["n","i","space","reg","a","s","space","la","space","homar","o","n"];
for(c=0;c<checks.length;c++)
    if( unityObjectValue[c] == checks[c]){ 
        // we are true, do we do something?
       ... 
       ...
   }

if you want to do something when you have a matched value

you can easily combine the two...

var checks = ["n","i","space","reg","a","s","space","la","space","homar","o","n"];
for(c=0,testVar=false;c<checks.length;c++){
    testVar = unityObjectValue[c] == checks[c]? true : testVar;

if( unityObjectValue[c] == checks[c] ){
   // we have a match
   ...
}
}

// house keeping, do somthing if we have a match
if( testVar ){ 
      // we are true, do we do something?
      }else{
      // were false, do something?
      }

Your choice of methods depends on your needs, going with an array and iterating it is IMHO far better than having lots of variables of a similar name.