And I don't think that it's really any trickier to read than if the operators weren't short-circuited, do you?
I definitely do.
And enormously more prone to introducing bugs when maintaining it.
I always make a point of commenting my code when there's more than a couple of discrete things going on in one instruction anyhow. For example if I've got a regex that's longer than one subexpression, I'll comment each step. Code can be as terse as you like, as long as it's explained suitably.
That works great as long as you maintain the comments.
If you're the only person working on the code you can probably do that, but if you're part of a larger development team you will probably find that sooner or later someone either removes one or two of the comments because they believe it's obvious, or forget to update them because some manager is screaming blue murder for a patch to be out by the end of the day.
And that's not a good argument for recommending against using short-circuited operators.
I would disagree.
--
-------------------------------------------- Stephen Milligan Code poet for hire http://www.spike.org.uk
Do you cfeclipse? http://cfeclipse.tigris.org
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
