Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:20:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <Ned(_dot_)Freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
My personal take is that short-circuit evaluation is useful enough to
warrant a MUST. But I'd rather have a statement saying scripts MUST
NOT take advantage of short-circuit evaluation than one saying
implementations MAY do it.
I suppose so in theory, but I really don't much care for the idea.
I'm sorry, but if short circuit evaluation is useful then it should be a
requirement, and if not it should not even be an extension.
The problem I have is that with the existing language, you can't tell
the difference between an implementation that doesn't suppot
short-circuit evaluation and one that does by its behavior, so I don't
want to specify it.
I don't buy the argument that this is problematic because some
languages don't support short-circuit evaluation. [...]
Just for the record, I buy this.
If someone could suggest real wording for this, I'd be happy to take it
and just get it over with. (And real soon, too.)
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>