On May 20, 2005, at 1:15 PM, Robert Brenstein wrote:
> if a is (b or c) then Or if a = (b or c)
I find it ambiguous because it will interfere with normal 'or' clauses.
I agree. I was so busy bragging about how I had done that before that I neglected to say that. It was not ambiguous in that ancient case because = was not defined on booleans.
> put a into b and c Or put a into b,c This is something that would be good.
Akin to what can be done in C :) It could be a handy shortcut ocassionally but using 'and' here bother me since 'and' normally implies logical operation. May using comma would be better if there is a convincing justification to add it.
My first guess of the meanings of the two are not the same.
I had guessed that put a into b and c would be the same as put a into b put a into c
I had guessed that put a into b, c would be the same as put item 1 of a into b put item 2 to -1 of a into c
In both cases 'a' would be evaluated one time.
We already find cases where 'and' used in a syntactic sense that is not the operator 'and' and I agree--it is awkward. However, comma is the same way. One has to be careful in passing comma'd values as parameters.
--
**********************************************
DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab)
http://www.swcp.com/dsc/
Programming and software
**********************************************
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
