1. Re: ex bloatware
- Posted by Irv <irv at ELLIJAY.COM>
Jun 21, 1998
-
Last edited Jun 22, 1998
Robert B Pilkington wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:04:21 +1200 "BABOR, JIRI" <J.Babor at GNS.CRI.NZ>
> writes:
> >Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> >> * if I change AND and OR to operate in the short-circuit
> >> manner, existing programs will break. I had no trouble
> >> finding at least 3 programs on the Euphoria Web site
> >> that would break if short-circuit were used (since function
> >> calls might be skipped).
> >
> >Small price to pay. Please, break them! Jiri
> >
>
> Hmmm, a new keyword, "with short_circut", that would default to "without
> short_circut"?? Unless a "with short_circut" is encountered, the
> short_circuts are automatically off.
>
> I don't know how valuable short-circuting would be, though. I haven't
> done anything that would visibly benefit from it. But that's just me...
Borland's Turbo-- languages have had this ability to "short circuit" boolean
evalsfor a long time. And I haven't used it, ever, as far as I can remember.
Why? Because it's a compiler directive, and I can't remember if the directive
was
used
the last time the program was compiled.
.
If we had with_ and without_, the situation would be even worse. We'd have to
track
back thru
the code to see where it was last turned on or off before we could decide what
the
outcome of the statement would be.
Irv
