On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> Merijn notices this line in 5.8.x in S_new_logop
>
> if ((type == OP_AND) == (SvTRUE(((SVOP*)first)->op_sv))) {
>
> It's wonky. It seems to be wrong. But it's been that way since 5.8.0 started.
>
> The corresponding point in blead is
>
> if ((type == OP_AND && SvTRUE(((SVOP*)first)->op_sv)) ||
> (type == OP_OR && !SvTRUE(((SVOP*)first)->op_sv)) ||
> (type == OP_DOR && !SvOK(((SVOP*)first)->op_sv))) {
>
>
> This was patched by Marcus Holland-Moritz, changing that == to && in the
> process:
>
> http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse?patch=22625
>
> Presumably '==' is wrong. But if this is a bug, how can it be detected
> with a perl level regression test?
If type can *only* be either OP_AND or OP_OR, then the code is actually
equivalent as far as I can tell. The second form is just more robust
in case type can assume any other value.
Cheers,
-Jan
