Re: Short circuit boolean evaluation

[svaa@ciberpiula.net (svaa)]

"Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Vwjqb.115053$HS4.999172@attbi_s01>...
> I consider it unimaginable to make such a fundamental change to a language
> in order to save a few keystrokes when more than a few billion lines of
> source code might be effected.

I wouldn't call it a few  keystrokes, I use it in every condition. 

Anyhow, that's not the problem, the problem is that short-circuit has
clearly proved to be better, I supose that the idea of Ada0x is to add
new features and remove flaws. Backward compatibility is a problem,
but it could be resolved with pragmas etc. Most sofware have eventualy
made changes that had backward compatibility problems. Probably a big
problem with backward compatibility means a big improvent for future
developments.

Sure we can live with full evaluation, but we can live better with
short circuit. If we accept that short circuit is better than full
evaluation, the change must be done, sooner or later. This time is as
good or bad as any another.

Perhaps Ada0x could let the full evaluation as default, but add a
pragma that allows short circuit, and in ada1x make it as default. (it
doesn't means make illegal "and then" operator). Ada has fame of
bloated and burden syntax, things like this doesn't help. I think it
is time and make good changes, even if they are deep. It's not time to
be conservative, but brave.

Will we carry "and then" in ada5x? Will we accept that flaw (a minor
flaw, but a flaw) in the first version must remain for ever?.