On 04.09.2020 15:17, Erich Steinböck wrote:
> I'm in favor of this proposal.
> To follow our existing shortcut-style with commas (note that although almost
> all of our current
> comma-shortcuts are AND-style, we also have an OR-style comma-shortcut for a
> WHEN in a SELECT
> CASE) we might use and-comma (&,) and or-comma (|,) as operators.
As Rick allows the comma "," to indicate short-circuiting conjunctions, then
this could be seen as a
short version of "&," taking the '&' as optional in this case. Using "|," for a
short-circuiting
disjunction would then be logical :).
So samples might look like:
-- conjunction:
if a=.true , b=.false , c=.true then ...
if a=.true &, b=.false &, c=.true then ... -- same as above
-- disjunction:
if a=.true |, b=.false |, c=.true then ...
In this case the comma after the logical operator indicates short-circuiting.
This mostlikely can be understood by students who get exposed to this notation
(just needing to
memorize that a trailing comma indicates short-circuiting for conjunctions and
disjunctions).
So in favor for this suggested syntax: +1
---rony
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:05 PM Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com
> <mailto:object.r...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> There's been a bit of a discussion about the short-cutting conditional
> lists implemented by
> IF, WHEN, et al. I find that construct very useful, but as the discussion
> on the list has
> revealed, it has its limitations.
>
> It would actually be fairly trivial to implement AND and OR operators
> that can do short-cut
> evaluation. Of course, this is not possible for XOR, which always
> requires both values. The
> real questions are 1) should it be done and 2) what should the operator
> be. I've been
> tentatively using *& and *| in my thinking about this, but there are
> certainly other
> possibilities.
>
> Rick
>
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
