Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are you sure? You asked me to restore similar parens around bit-ands > back at several other locations despite other work that changed the > lines, in an earlier email. Not that I disagree now. I actually prefer > the version without the unnecessary parens around the bit-and. I just > think we should be consistent.
It's a minor point, but expressions like (a & b && c) are assumed to be confusing, as they depend on obscure precedence rules, whereas expressions like (a & b ? c : d) are not confusing in the same way: there's only one way to parse them, even if you have forgotten the precedence. _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
