I need to skip an operation if these conditions are as follows:

if(string1 != string2) or (string1 != string3) or (string1 != string4)
{
do this...
}

I may just have drawn a blank, but your help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Trint

trint wrote:
> I need to skip an operation if these conditions are as follows:
>
> if(string1 != string2) or (string1 != string3) or (string1 != string4)
> {
> do this...
> }
>
> I may just have drawn a blank, but your help is appreciated.

if((string1 != string2) || (string1 != string3) || (string1 != string4))

should be fine.

Arne

On May 8, 6:46*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> trint wrote:
> > I need to skip an operation if these conditions are as follows:
>
> > if(string1 != string2) or (string1 != string3) or (string1 != string4)
> > {
> > * do this...
> > }
>
> > I may just have drawn a blank, but your help is appreciated.
>
> if((string1 != string2) || (string1 != string3) || (string1 != string4))
>
> should be fine.
>
> Arne

Thanks. I'll try that.
Trint

On May 9, 4:11*am, trint <trinity.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:46*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> > trint wrote:
> > > I need to skip an operation if these conditions are as follows:
>
> > > if(string1 != string2) or (string1 != string3) or (string1 != string4)
> > > {
> > > * do this...
> > > }
>
> > > I may just have drawn a blank, but your help is appreciated.
>
> > if((string1 != string2) || (string1 != string3) || (string1 != string4))
>
> > should be fine.
>
> > Arne
>
> Thanks. *I'll try that.
> Trint

Hi Trint,

Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
if you are checking contents to be equal
you need to take care of null values too.

Cheers,
-Ratnesh
S7 Software

On May 9, 4:11*am, trint <trinity.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:46*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> > trint wrote:
> > > I need to skip an operation if these conditions are as follows:
>
> > > if(string1 != string2) or (string1 != string3) or (string1 != string4)
> > > {
> > > * do this...
> > > }
>
> > > I may just have drawn a blank, but your help is appreciated.
>
> > if((string1 != string2) || (string1 != string3) || (string1 != string4))
>
> > should be fine.
>
> > Arne
>
> Thanks. *I'll try that.
> Trint

Hi Trint,

Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
if you are checking contents to be equal
you need to take care of null values too.

Cheers,
-Ratnesh
S7 Software

> Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
> if you are checking contents to be equal
> you need to take care of null values too.

I'm pretty sure the string class overloads the '!=' and '==' to
compare references and then contents if the reference comparison
fails. Is that not the case? You have to beware of nulls for what you
are suggesting.

> Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
> if you are checking contents to be equal
> you need to take care of null values too.

I'm pretty sure the string class overloads the '!=' and '==' to
compare references and then contents if the reference comparison
fails. Is that not the case? You have to beware of nulls for what you
are suggesting.

>>
Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
if you are checking contents to be equal
you need to take care of null values too.
<<

This approach is likely to suffer from null reference exceptions, whereas
the original != one isn't.



--
Pete
====
http://mrpmorris.blogspot.com
http://www.AlterEgos.com - Who do you want to be?

>>
Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
if you are checking contents to be equal
you need to take care of null values too.
<<

This approach is likely to suffer from null reference exceptions, whereas
the original != one isn't.



--
Pete
====
http://mrpmorris.blogspot.com
http://www.AlterEgos.com - Who do you want to be?

On May 9, 6:40*pm, not_a_commie <notacom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Better to use if (!string1.equals(string2)) than if(string1!=string2),
> > if you are checking contents to be equal
> > you need to take care of null values too.
>
> I'm pretty sure the string class overloads the '!=' and '==' to
> compare references and then contents if the reference comparison

No it doesnt, it works because of string "intern pool" the .Net
provides for optimization.
So if you have two string literals containing same string value, then
most probably both of them references to same string literal in intern
pool.
But it is never safe.

> fails. Is that not the case? You have to beware of nulls for what you
> are suggesting.

Yes that is the pain you need to take for good.

Cheers,
-Ratnesh