-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Eggert wrote:
>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. Okay, parens removed. Delaying new patch until I've processed the rest of your emails. Cheers, Derek -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCii0TLD1OTBfyMaQRAgE0AKCMyzvr5P31kyXB2aDTDdUSOTp6HQCg2+dm CjcxyJKKkqFEyexvpoMajtE= =h/Cn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
