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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,88858d66e427dbcb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-06 15:03:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Short circuit boolean evaluation
References: <87f5a614.0311061144.360b3325@posting.google.com>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <crAqb.130954$HS4.1030055@attbi_s01>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.124.41
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s01 1068159816 12.234.124.41 (Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:03:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:03:36 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:03:36 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2173
Date: 2003-11-06T23:03:36+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> short-circuit has clearly proved to be better
Says who?  I claim short-circuit is clearly worse.  Do you have any
evidence otherwise?