Re: gawk-5.1.1 bug report

[Ed Morton]

On 4/6/2022 3:13 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 4/6/22 00:04, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> > IMHO clear code beats saving a single branch
>
> Sure, but clarity also argues for "&" over "&&" here. Writing "f(x) && 
> f(y)" would incorrectly imply that it's important that f(y) should not 
> be evaluated when f(x) is false
"f(x) && f(y)" simply states that f(y) wont be evaluated when f(x) is 
false, it doesn't imply anything about whether it's important that that 
be the case or not. On  the other hand, "f(x) & f(y)" would imply that 
it's important that f(y) SHOULD be evaluated whether f(x) is true or 
false because why else would you write "&" instead of "&&" in a compound 
condition context?

    Ed.
> , an implication that is incorrect here. Writing "f(x) & f(y)" tells 
> the reader that both sides are safe to evaluate and that they can be 
> evaluated in either order, something I found worth knowing when I read 
> that part of the code.