[Gambas-user] strange problem with NOT

[Benoit Minisini]

On Tuesday 22 March 2005 04:15, Jean-Francois Perreault wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >On Monday 21 March 2005 15:10, Jean-Francois Perreault wrote:
> >>IF (b <> 0) AND (c > d) THEN
> >>then both expression are evaluated before the AND , causing a
> >>performance penalty
> >
> >Are you sure it has to be that way?  I'm pretty sure Perl's short
> >circuiting, when confronted with
> >
> >if (($b != 0) && ($c > $d)) {
> >
> >would evaluate "$b != 0" and then stop if it were false.
> >
> >Rob
>
> I haven't tried , but I'd guess that no , unless it's a hack because ()
> has the highest priority , even over + and -
>
> but does gambas implement short circuiting 

No. But this is planned. Read the TODO file!

> and expression evaluation 
> re-ordering optimisations ?

No optimization of expressions.

-- 
Benoit Minisini
mailto:gambas at ...1...