> No. I don't want to see && or || and not know whether it short-circuits > without looking in the class interface. My brain is conditioned through > years of C and Perl to expect that they always short-circuit. This is too > venerable a semantic to change. Please. What if I want to overload && and || so that they help built an expression tree, rather than immediately evaluating? Damian
- Re: RFC 49 (v1) Objects should have builtin string SCALA Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 49 (v1) Objects should have builtin string SCALA Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 49 (v1) Objects should have builtin string ... Nathan Wiger
- Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Nathan Torkington
- Re: Overloading && || Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Chaim Frenkel
- Re: Overloading && || David L. Nicol