From: "Jan E." <lists@...>
Date: 2013-01-06T13:56:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Best practice for &&, ||, and, or

Dave Aronson wrote in post #1091178:
> No!  No!  1000.times :no!  ;-)
>
> Consider the difference between "x = true && false" and "x = true and
> false".  Since && has HIGHER precedence than =, "x = true && false" is
> equivalent to "x = (true && false)", just as you might expect.

Why would I expect that? Why would I even *use* assignments in "if" 
statements?

Sorry, but if you use assignments in "if" statements (much too obscure) 
without explicit parenthesis (even worse), then I'd say *this* is your 
problem, not the implicit operator precedence you somehow consider to be 
"wrong".

Maybe my programming style is totally out of fashion, but my "if" 
statements usually look like this:

if <some expression> and (<some expression> or <some expression>)
  ...
end

With <some expression> being a pure expression (no change of state). In 
that context, I want a very low precedence to make sure that each <some 
expression> is evaluated *before* and/or takes action.

And I believe this is the sane way of writing "if" statements.

When I want to do "magic" like

var = val || alt

then I do use &&/||. But this is a very different context.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.