On 4/6/22 10:24, arn...@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
