Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #39972

Re: Understanding &&

Show key headers only | View raw

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse:
>
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2021-04-16, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes:
>>>>> You most often see this sort of thing in JavaScript that was
>>>>> automatically generated by a compiler (either because the original
>>>>> source was in something else like TypeScript or a more modern version
>>>>> of JavaScript or because the author wanted to compress/minify the
>>>>> script), but human beings are also quite capable of writing hard-to-read
>>>>> code like this.
>>>>
>>>> Is that specifically when the right-hand operand is an assignment
>>>> expression?  I don't find that hard to read but then I'm used to
>>>> assignment being and expression so it seems like a natural extension of
>>>> the more frequently seen uses of &&.
>>>
>>> I mean where it's an expression being abused as a control flow
>>> mechanism.
>> 
>> If readability is not the problem I'm not sure what constitutes abuse.
>
> Abuse is to use things for something which they are not meant to be
> used. An *expression* is called so because you *express* something
> like

I don't think it's not that simple.  In some views, an expression can
express an action, and a statement can describe actions that express a
value.  Obviously you are in the oil and water camp about this, but the
arguments for that should be more than quasi tautologies about
expressions expressing something.

> x = a && b;
>
> Nobody would expect that this *expression* will cause parts of the code
> to get executed or not

Hmm...  Everyone should expect that since that's what && means.  Do you
mean && (as defined) should simply not exist is programming languages?

> like in this example:
>
> x = a && (b=5);
>
> It's not just a "readability problem". It's relying on side effects like
> that in a && b the "b" part will not get exectued if "a" is false. But
> this is just a convention and nothing obvious.
>
>
>> Is it just a rule of yours to keep these two things entirely separate?
>> Maybe some uses are acceptable and don't constitute abuse?  Is any
>
> I see this as "abuse" as well.
>
>> reliance on short-circuit evaluation in an expression an abuse?  If so,
>> does that extend to '??' and '?.'?  (That's not easy to make clear in
>> typing but I hope you know what I mean.)
>
> The ??= operator was *intentionally* designed to work this way.

That's a new one to me.  I thought the 11th edition was the latest, and
it's not in there.

That aside, I think && and || were intentionally designed to work as
they do, so intentional design can't justification enough in your mind.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Understanding && Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2021-04-16 14:30 +1000
  Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 11:00 +0100
  Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 11:17 +0000
    Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 16:09 +0100
      Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 15:26 +0000
        Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-16 21:09 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-16 21:06 +0000
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 02:01 +0100
              Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-17 08:33 +0100
              Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-17 12:06 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-17 14:13 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 15:50 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-17 15:21 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 23:46 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-17 23:46 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 23:59 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 13:56 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 23:08 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 22:52 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-20 01:23 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-20 01:08 +0000
              Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-18 00:49 +0200
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:26 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-17 17:05 +0200
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-17 23:04 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-18 00:48 +0200
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:13 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-04-19 21:58 +0200
            Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-18 18:20 +0100
          Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-18 00:40 +0200
            Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 00:14 +0100
              Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-18 00:01 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-18 17:44 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-18 17:51 +0000
              Re: Understanding && Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-04-19 13:41 +0200
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-19 15:02 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-20 17:40 +0100
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-20 18:19 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-21 10:11 +0100
                Re: Understanding && John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-21 19:46 +0100
                Re: Understanding && The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-22 13:48 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 21:28 +0100
                Re: Understanding && Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-04-19 21:56 +0000
                Re: Understanding && Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-04-19 23:13 +0100

csiph-web