On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Antti Palosaari wrote: > Clear bug, I will test it later when applied to master if not > already. Thanks!
You're welcome, but it's not a bug because (1 & 1 & 0) is the same as (1 && 1 && 0) but if one of them wasn't a bool it would be a problem. The other difference between & and && is that && has orderring guarantees but that's also not a factor here. regards, dan carpenter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
