On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:53 AM, <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote: > > which also contains a suggested patch > > Did you check that the proposed patch actually works? > > I see no difference between: > > a || b > and > a || (a && b) which is (a || a) && (a || b) > a || (a && b) is actually just a fancier way to write a.
if a is true, the result is true, if a is false, the result will be a && b, however, as a is already false, it's false. in go9p.patch, the suggested change is actually from a || b to a || (b && a), this is slightly different. But it's still just a fancier way to write a.
