- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:33:07 +0200
- To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote: >No. That was Terje's change in ><http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check.diff?r1=1.234&r2 >=1.235&f=h>, which actually broke things. Woops! My bad. >Yes. That works again, and uses the "and" Terje seems to love :) >[...] >That's why I personally never use the "and" form. Mixing "and" and "&&" >is always IMHO either 1) wrong 2) hard to read correctly. There is a reason why Perl has two logical AND operators with different precendence; one of them being exactly to cut down on paranthesis. And my personal Perl Style Guide demands "and" over "&&" where possible to enable the code to read more like a English sentence (without going to extremes; I'm not a candyfloss-language fan!), to cut down on the amount of punctuation, and to use the loosest binding (lowest precendence) operator that will do the job.
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 15:35:31 UTC