[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gawk-5.1.1 bug report
|
From: |
Bernhard Voelker |
|
Subject: |
Re: gawk-5.1.1 bug report |
|
Date: |
Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:28:04 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 |
On 4/6/22 10:24, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> I'll stick to my opinion that && is better here since we're doing
> logical tests; the short-circuit nature of && is less important.
_____________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, it was an argument to say that & eliminates a conditional execution
branch, but if both sides of the & operator have to be evaluated, then this
is really an argument for && because calling the 2nd function is much more
overhead than the savings of & over &&, right?
Have a nice day,
Berny