On 2011-07-17, Matt Benson wrote:
>> ,
>> | It only evaluates to true if an odd number of nested conditions are true.
>> `
> So is this an accepted "kind of xor"?
Accepted by the original author (Steve IIRC), silently accepted by all
reviewers back then and in a way accepted as "that's w
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-07-17, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>> Currently each nested condition is xor'd against the cumulative result, thus:
>
>> xor(true, false) == true
>> xor(true, false, true) == false
>> xor(true, false, true, false) == false
>
>> Is this cor
On 2011-07-17, Matt Benson wrote:
> Currently each nested condition is xor'd against the cumulative result, thus:
> xor(true, false) == true
> xor(true, false, true) == false
> xor(true, false, true, false) == false
> Is this correct? It would seem that semantically an xor over multiple
> neste
Currently each nested condition is xor'd against the cumulative result, thus:
xor(true, false) == true
xor(true, false, true) == false
xor(true, false, true, false) == false
Is this correct? It would seem that semantically an xor over multiple
nested conditions should mean that exactly one value
