From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99e73f65ea2533b9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: and then... (a curiosity)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <c10f90e7-bc1a-4706-9a5e-df60f458a6e5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <18b41828-bda4-4484-8884-ad62ce1c831d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
	<57qdnfULQ9tzKCHVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0809020925030.9968@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<48bd0003$1@news.post.ch>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0809021210200.10279@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<a328076a-5b2e-4e05-8a07-87de6e72cf1d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809021510300.11408@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1220359988 8858 127.0.0.1 (2 Sep 2008 12:53:08
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.3)
	Gecko/20040924,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1866
Date: 2008-09-02T05:53:07-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> 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.

> A short-circuit "and" (instead of "and then") would not remove that choice
> -- see the "much better style" above.

But it would break the mathematical purity of "and".

--
Ludovic Brenta.