- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:23:32 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10073
Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gandhi.mukul@gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com> 2010-07-15 03:23:31 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Also, why we have a not() function but we lack or() and and() ?
(Personal opinion)
Functionality of "or" and "and" operators are already available as (i.e, with
relevant operators):
x or y
x and y
I don't think we should provide a superfluous definitions for these with
additional or() and and() functions.
btw, I'm happy with an existing not(x) :)
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 03:23:34 UTC