On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:08:37PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Yes: > | !(a && b) !a || !b > | a == 0, b == 0: a. Wrong. Stop. Negate. True !a. W. S. N. T > | a == 0, b == 1: a. Wrong. Stop. Negate. True !a. W. S. N. T > > yes... tired I guess... and since we are on this topic, I have > forgotten the name of this transformation, can you remind me? > > I found it: DeMorgan's Law.
Yes. > | a == 1, b == 0: a. Good. b Wrong. Negate. True a Good. N. b. W. N. Or T > | a == 1, b == 1: a. Good. b good. Negate. False a Good. N. b. G. N. Or F > > > >> I guess the (!a && !b) -> !(a || b) transmformation only holds if a > >> and b are independant. That is not the case here. > > > | It also holds for short-cut evaluation. > > You are right... back to the original question... was my adding of > !a && ... wrong? I would think so (using || would make me feel better at least...) But it somehow does not show up as obvious problem which raises the question why this code is needed at all... Andre'
