Re: and then... (a curiosity)

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Ludovic Brenta schrieb:
>> But do you really dispute that following the mathematical conventions
>> as much as possible would improve readability?
> 
> Of course not. That's wgy "and" should have its mathematical meaning -
> i.e it should not impose an order of evaluation and it should not
> avoid evaluating its operands. That's what "and then" is for.

There is no order, but still the trouble is that mathematics
is not usually about evaluation at all. The process of
evaluating is not explicitly present in the mathematical
meaning of "and". It does not build on "process" or "procedure".

*

Another issue with "and then" short-circuits apparears
in some "elsif"s:

if This_Thing and then Another_Thing then

elsif This_Thing and then Yet_Another_Thing then

... more of the same ...

else
  -- this catches, errhhm, how many of which of
  -- the alternatives and when?
end if


Nest instead and an "unambiguous if-then-else statement"
removes the need of low-level source code optimization
such as too many short-circuits. Makes your fuses blow :) :)

--
Georg Bauhaus
Y A Time Drain  http://www.9toX.de