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!news4.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: and then... (a curiosity)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:50:34 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccljya6zmt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <18b41828-bda4-4484-8884-ad62ce1c831d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <874p53bij6.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
 <94cc1ce3-59d1-41fa-9167-f3b60ddd2835@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <48bba264$1@news.post.ch> <ufxojoimh.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <48bce306$1@news.post.ch> <utzcyldk4.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1220388634 1823 192.74.137.71 (2 Sep 2008 20:50:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:50:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W9Xr3PB4JnDx5jly6h5rVkJvlUU=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1879
Date: 2008-09-02T16:50:34-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net> writes:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> When I was at Polytechnic first language was PL/1, second Pascal and
>> therefore methodology was different. i.E. Don't rely on the execution
>> order of boolean expressing.
>
> This I also agree with, although I admit being used to the short circuit &&
> forms in the C-like languages.
>
> But my point is about having the source code be clearer when both
> operands are required to be evaluated, especially when this is a
> possibility:

It seems to me that two cases come up in practise, for "A and [then] B".
Either I don't care which gets evaluated first, and don't care whether
or not both get evaluated, because there are no important side effects
(that's "A and B"), or I care about order (that's "A and then B").

I never see cases where it is important that A and B both be evaluated.

Counterexamples, please?  ;-)  Realistic ones, I mean.

- Bob