Well. I am confused. I believed the computer did the short circuiting
automatically on these boolean expressions. What does the new coding style do
to help?Seems like var++might be more a useful shortcut thanvar = var + 1Just
my humble and rare opinion since I generally just listen and try to
learn.Thanks,ThomSent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S7 edge.
-------- Original message --------From: "Rony G. Flatscher"
<rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> Date: 9/5/20 13:40 (GMT-06:00) To:
oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting
logical operators
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> 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
