Hi
the video and slide are both used in chapter 3 , if you take the slide and when Chuck pauses to give students a moment to work through the code, I noticed that there is no value for x. So if you take the code a face value (ie no value for x) the output is different than what the lesson intends.
note how the value for x is never defined,,,,, I think the author intended for the value to be the same as the previous example, and it may seem pedantic but it did cause me to go "Oh it's none of the listed conditions " .
I get that the intention is show the difference the operators make but if you read or watch it in isolation i don't think it's right.
Hi the video and slide are both used in chapter 3 , if you take the slide and when Chuck pauses to give students a moment to work through the code, I noticed that there is no value for x. So if you take the code a face value (ie no value for x) the output is different than what the lesson intends.
note how the value for x is never defined,,,,, I think the author intended for the value to be the same as the previous example, and it may seem pedantic but it did cause me to go "Oh it's none of the listed conditions " .
I get that the intention is show the difference the operators make but if you read or watch it in isolation i don't think it's right.