Re: and then... (a curiosity)

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
> Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> > On 29 Sie, 23:47, Samuel Tardieu <s...@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Sometimes, you want to ensure that both sides of the boolean operator
> >> have been evaluated. Here is an example:
> >>
> >>   --  Send the message to the log and return True if it
> >>   --  has been logged at least at one place succesfully.
> >>
> >>   function Log (Message : String) return Boolean is
> >>   begin
> >>      return Log_To_Network (Message) or Log_To_Disk (Message);
> >>   end Log;
> > 
> > This is actually a bad example. It might use "or else" and still
> > retain the semantics as described in the comment above.
> 
> "At least one" of the logs should, I guess, mean to try both.
> I.e., the Log subprogram is not about its return value alone.
> "Or" achieves all of that (the semantics).
> 
> "Or else" might also establish a strict preference for the
> network log. "Or" should not.

This kind of confusion makes me prefer an unambiguous if-then-else statement.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.