Shane Holloway (IEEE) wrote: > Tim Hochberg wrote: > > that there are no use > > cases for the custom short circuiting yet, we then just drop scand/scor > > until a compelling use case shows up, if it ever does. > > A boolean calculus (predicate) engine would make use of > short-circuiting. Or perhaps a state machine would make use of this > feature. I agree with Greg that I'd rather the implementation be > "complete". Computer Scientists have already been down this road, and > we know that there are two useful forms. :) I have no objections if someone can actually come up with use cases. However, I still thinks the names should change: and2/or2 will be used the vast majority of the time. Of course, my earlier suggestion to use and/or is completely bogus since that's what &/| map to. Doh! Still, I think the use cases need to be more concrete than what we've seen so far. I can come up with a case where short circuiting could be used in numarray, but not one where I think it should, so I won't be of any help here. > > I like [__and1__, __and__, __or__, __or1__] -- the abbreviation would > have to be documented anyway, and the '1' says "one argument: self" to > me. Sadly, and/or are already taken. I don't think this helps the and1/and2 case much though -- having three methods and/and1/and2 is just confusing. Maybe booland or logand or logicaland? I dunno, none of those are particularly satisfying. Regards, -tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4