OpenEuphoria

Re: Short-circuit warning

• Posted by Andy Drummond <andy at k?strelt?le.com> May 20, 2008
• 641 views

Jason Gade wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > 
> > Is this warning really valid:
> > 
> > Warning: ../bin/indent.ex:53 - call to matches() might be short-circuited
> > 
> > Well, maybe valid, but useful? For instance, I specifically made the if
> > statement
> > to short-circuit, that's the way I want it. I program all the time counting
> > on short circuits and do not really feel as though I need a warning about
> > it.
> > I thought short-circuits were a benefit?
> > 
> > --
> > Jeremy Cowgar
> > <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a>
> 
> I think it was a valid warning when short-circuiting was new to Euphoria. I
> guess the question is whether short-circuiting is expected behavior by people
> new or relatively new to programming?
> 
> Personally, I say do away with it and make it very clear in the docs that that
> is how things work.
> 

When I first used Euphoria the docs DID describe the short-circuiting process.
It was very clear, and made coding easier with things like:

if atom(res) or length(res)=0 or res[1]='+' then
        do something
    end if

To do that with three nested if statements would be silly. As is the process
of hiding side-effects within if statements. An if statement is a condition
testing statement, and just because you CAN hide assignments within it hardly
makes for clear coding and good practice.
So please stick with short-circuiting if statements and recommend that users
do actually read the original Euphoria documentation first.

> --
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
> system that works.
> --John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
> 
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
> --C.A.R. Hoare
> 
> j.