Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Understanding &&
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 15:50:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <87y2dharsu.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <U_CdnQWSXulHj-T9nZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@westnet.com.au> <slrns7ishn.4j8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> <87wnt2e06e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <slrns7jb5v.4j8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> <87mttydm95.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <slrns7jv2m.4j8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> <87o8edd8qk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u4gl7gls4sbkvh232rarcd04qr8n7cck43@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4e3f27b6ab499a3bcc0c30dc0654f2f4"; logging-data="5572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1D5LuBDF6CbI6HAEk2mtoZC0E6Cvn7hg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bJFGlqCVAkaxsfedaK+K3bg6i3c= sha1:jyc7XHKZBEz2F3oDvD5pywrN7I0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.a61030a08f8cc4120e79.20210417155041BST.87y2dharsu.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:39960

John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 02:01:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>   <snip>
>>If you
>>don't mind, can say if the problems you have with its readability is
>>down to there being an assignment on the right, or is it with any use of
>>&& that relies on the short-circuit evaluation.
>   <snip>
>
> Two ways of writing it imply different purposes :
>
>   if A is true then Do B
> where the emphasis is on Doing.
>
>   if A is true then it's safe to Evaluate B
> where the emphasis is on Evaluating.

Thanks.  I don't find the "do" vs "evaluate" so clear cut, but I get
that you want to keep them separate.  The two get mixed up because
sometimes we want both.  And functions that do things and return values
make sense (to me) on either side of &&.

-- 
Ben.