Re: Short-circuit Logic

Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	2013-05-26 21:44 -0700
References	<5f101d70-e51f-4531-9153-c92ee2486fd9@googlegroups.com> <mailman.2196.1369599562.3114.python-list@python.org> <roy-31D5CD.16222626052013@news.panix.com> <51a2ab67$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Message-ID	<80c667ec-429d-469d-b69f-1b3effc4a0ef@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Short-circuit Logic
From	rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On May 27, 5:40 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:22:26 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> > In article <mailman.2196.1369599562.3114.python-l...@python.org>,
> >  Terry Jan Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On 5/26/2013 7:11 AM, Ahmed Abdulshafy wrote:
>
> >> >       if not allow_zero and abs(x) < sys.float_info.epsilon:
> >> >                  print("zero is not allowed")
>
> >> The reason for the order is to do the easy calculation first and the
> >> harder one only if the first passes.
>
> > This is a particularly egregious case of premature optimization.  You're
> > worried about how long it takes to execute abs(x)?  That's silly.
>
> I don't think it's a matter of premature optimization so much as the
> general principle "run code only if it needs to run". Hence, first you
> check the flag to decide whether or not you care whether x is near zero,
> and *only if you care* do you then check whether x is near zero.
>
> # This is silly:
> if x is near zero:
>     if we care:
>         handle near zero condition()
>
> # This is better:
> if we care:
>     if x is near zero
>         handle near zero condition()
>
> Not only is this easier to understand because it matches how we do things
> in the real life, but it has the benefit that if the "near zero"
> condition ever changes to become much more expensive, you don't have to
> worry about reordering the tests because they're already in the right
> order.
>
> --
> Steven

Three points:

3. These arguments are based on a certain assumption: that the inputs
are evenly distributed statistically.
If however that is not so, ie say:
"We-care" is mostly true
and
"x-is-near-zero" is more often false
then doing the near-zero test first would be advantageous

Well thats the 3rd point...

2. Nikalus Wirth deliberately did not use short-circuit boolean
operators in his languages because he found these kind of distinctions
to deteriorate into irrelevance and miss out the more crucial
questions of correctness

1. As Roy pointed out in his initial response to the OP:
"I dont understand your confusion... None of <the above> applies to
your example"
its not at all clear to me that anything being said has anything to do
with what the OP asked!

Thread

Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 04:11 -0700
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-26 07:38 -0400
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-26 12:13 +0000
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 13:11 -0700
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-28 01:10 +0100
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 01:39 -0700
          RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-28 12:32 +0300
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-28 12:45 +0100
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 13:51 +0000
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-28 15:14 +0000
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 15:55 +0000
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 13:48 +0000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 00:01 +1000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 07:27 -0700
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 00:32 +1000
          Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 07:33 -0700
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 10:50 -0600
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 02:28 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 13:45 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:42 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-05-30 10:22 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 08:29 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-05-30 12:07 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-30 23:55 +0100
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 19:31 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Stefan Drees <stefan@drees.name> - 2013-05-31 17:34 +0200
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 08:48 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 19:38 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-31 02:10 +0100
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 21:21 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 21:57 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 21:33 -0600
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 03:03 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 18:29 +1000
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 00:03 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 05:13 +0000
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 09:42 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 08:11 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 17:09 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 08:45 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-31 09:20 -0400
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-01 10:23 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 20:11 -0700
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-05-29 20:23 -0400
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:20 +0000
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:10 +0000
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 15:22 +1000
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 08:40 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 22:58 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 09:58 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 03:23 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 17:13 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 12:29 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-05-30 08:02 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 01:56 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 16:40 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 19:22 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:46 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-05-30 09:30 -0700
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-05-30 19:30 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 13:49 -0600
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-26 16:19 -0400
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-26 16:22 -0400
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-26 17:28 -0400
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-27 00:40 +0000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2013-05-27 11:57 +1000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 21:44 -0700
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 06:59 +0200
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-27 18:52 +0100
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 13:08 -0700
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-27 21:36 -0400

csiph-web