On 13/10/2015 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
The real question becomes should it be changed to follow expected
mathematical norms (breaking all existing correct code and fixing all
broken code where people assumed it was done in the generally accepted
way).
No, but we should advise people t
Not true or misstated, see
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186992%28v=sql.105%29.aspx for
correct priority of operators.
Without parentheses AND is evaluated before OR
Attached is a little browser program I use to test Boolean arithmetic.
It is written in html && stands for AND, ||
On 10/13/2015 06:25 AM, Regina Henschel wrote:
Other example: Basic has no shortcut evaluation of boolean expressions.
A major annoyance to me. It causes a bunch or nested if statements.
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pito
Hi,
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak schrieb:
[..]
The real question becomes should it be changed to follow expected
mathematical norms (breaking all existing correct code and fixing all
broken code where people assumed it was done in the generally accepted
way). I am glad I need not make that call.
Guenter, although you are correct with respect to Basic as implemented
in AOO (and you stated it very well... I enjoyed your post), I am not
aware of any other computer language where this is true. For example:
C and C++
http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence
Java is the s
Hi,
Am 12.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb Mathias Röllig:
...
What do you expect?
For logical operations AND is equivalent to * and OR is equivalent to +.
no, that's not true. AND and OR have the same priority, just as * and /
(division). (* and / have a higher priority than + and -.)
AND should ha
I was tempted to open a bug against this some years back, but, this is
the type of change that I can't help but wonder if it is more dangerous
to affect existing code, or to use rules by new users who are unaware
that ^ does not follow expected rules, and neither does AND and OR. Same
is true
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:45:16 -0400
Andrew Pitonyak wrote:
> Yes, I note this travesty in OOME. There is also a difference in the
> way that it handles exponentiation. Standard rules indicate that 2^3^4
> is evaluated as 2^(3^4) rather than (2^3)^4, wihch is what OOo does.
This problem came up
Yes, I note this travesty in OOME. There is also a difference in the
way that it handles exponentiation. Standard rules indicate that 2^3^4
is evaluated as 2^(3^4) rather than (2^3)^4, wihch is what OOo does.
On 12.10.2015 15:40, Mathias Röllig wrote:
Hello!
I stumbled into a priority proble
