Re: Short-circuit warning
- Posted by Andy Drummond <andy at ke?t?eltele.com> May 20, 2008
- 629 views
Jason Gade wrote: > > Andy Drummond wrote: > > When I first used Euphoria the docs DID describe the short-circuiting > > process. > > It was very clear, and made coding easier with things like: > > }}} <eucode> > > if atom(res) or length(res)=0 or res[1]='+' then > > do something > > end if > > </eucode> {{{ > > 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. > > No one is talking about doing away with short circuiting. We're talking about > whether there should be a warning in the short circuiting case. I misunderstood what was being said then. In which case I agree with the contributer who thought up a whole pile of silly warnings. That could be economised with a single one: warning: This language follows the documentation. I have one concern. Don't break existing code. After that almost any change can be considered and maybe implemented.