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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,db5c6b2ef47d4b9e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-20 14:36:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: Wilhelm.Spickermann@t-online.de (Wilhelm Spickermann) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: short-circuit control forms Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:10:40 +0200 (CEST) Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 993071896 77849 137.194.161.2 (20 Jun 2001 21:18:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:18:16 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: X-Sender: 0211750756-0001@t-dialin.net Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8942 Date: 2001-06-20T23:10:40+02:00 On 20-Jun-01 Beard, Frank wrote: ... > It seems to me that the "and" and "or" should have been implemented > in the short circuit form to begin with, instead of requiring > "and then" and "or else". As soon as one of the conditions is FALSE > for "and" or TRUE for "or", there is no need to check the remaining > arguments. ... But this would lead to programs using "and" where "and then" is required now and using "or" where "or else" is required now. If you want to prove certain conditions at a point of a program, it�s much easier if you can use the rules of mathematical logic. I prefer the way Ada is now and I think that everyone using "and then" or "or else" for efficiency reasons should write a comment stating the reasons clearly. Wilhelm