Re: mostly open issues

[Tim Showalter <tjs+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:20:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> > > My personal take is that short-circuit evaluation is useful enough to
> > > warrant a MUST. But I'd rather have a statement saying scripts MUST
> > > NOT take advantage of short-circuit evaluation than one saying
> > > implementations MAY do it.

> I suppose so in theory, but I really don't much care for the idea. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but if short circuit evaluation is useful then it should be a
> requirement, and if not it should not even be an extension.

The problem I have is that with the existing language, you can't tell
the difference between an implementation that doesn't suppot
short-circuit evaluation and one that does by its behavior, so I don't
want to specify it.

> I don't buy the argument that this is problematic because some
> languages don't support short-circuit evaluation. [...]

Just for the record, I buy this.


If someone could suggest real wording for this, I'd be happy to take it
and just get it over with.  (And real soon, too.)

-- 
Tim Showalter <tjs+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>