koobas.hobune.stream
is the process of checking if a boolean is true then setting it to false faster than just setting it to false without checking its state ?
as the question states , i would like to know if it is faster to just set a boolean to false whether or not it is true of false , or is checking if the bool is true then setting it to false; faster ?
and over time with an accumulation if objects referencing the bool with it still be the fastest method ?
What happens if it false? Nothing? By the way, this is micro optimization.
yeah, nothing happens if it is false.
if(abool) abool = false;
abool = false;
abool = (abool) ? !abool:abool;
To expand on the micro-optimization comment, tommorow you'll realize you do need to check if it was true, before setting to false, for some error checks, clean up, etc... .
if(myBool) // I need to check if the boolean is true before assigning a new value to it, first step.
myBool = false; // Now assigning it a value, second step.
myBool = true; // Just assigning its value without a check only takes 1 step.
Checking the variable first introduces another step of complexity to it. Just assigning its value without checking is faster.
I doubt you would see any marked improvement in performance if you stopped checking a simple data type such as a boolean, infact it would probably hurt your code if you stopped checking what data is being held in your variables.
I think he means
if(myBool)
myBool = false;
myBool = !myBool;
Good point, didnt think of that. Though i would still think that it would be faster without checking its state using an IF statement.
Toggling is still just simply an assignment operation and with a simple data type like a boolean it would just be flipped.
I agree on that point but with compiler optimization, it is also possible that both code will yield identical asm codes.
$$anonymous$$y best guess is that if(myBool) myBool = false equals myBool = true on C# compilers. But for other codes like if(myBool) {...} and myBool = !myBool; ... , I'm betting that the latter is way better.
Your probably right. I prefer toggle ins$$anonymous$$d of checking its value first as i think it reads better.
myBool ^= true;
I would even say an XOR would result the same as well as far as i understand it.
There's nothing in the OP to suggest it's about toggling (it only ever mentions setting the bool to false). So the code in the answer should be...
if(myBool) // I need to check if the boolean is true before assigning a new value to it, first step.
myBool = false; // Now assigning it a value, second step.
myBool = false; // Just assigning its value without a check only takes 1 step.
But regardless, the analysis seems right to me. The first cannot be faster than the second, but the difference is probably not all that useful.
