Timeline for Why isn't Orderless an Attribute of And?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2016 at 8:13 | history | edited | Alexey Popkov | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 7:35 | vote | accept | Soldalma | ||
| Oct 23, 2016 at 7:35 | vote | accept | Soldalma | ||
| Oct 23, 2016 at 7:35 | |||||
| Oct 23, 2016 at 5:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMma/status/790069881131692032 | ||
| Oct 23, 2016 at 3:38 | comment | added | Greg Hurst | To preserve short circuiting. | |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 3:20 | comment | added | Szabolcs | You already answered your own question. And is not Orderless so it can be short circuiting. This is not only about efficiency. You can also do stuff like FooQ[x] && FunnyFooQ[x] where FunnyFooQ won't even run without errors for something that is not a "Foo". Short circuiting makes it possible to write more concise and therefore clearer code without too many Ifs. | |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 3:18 | answer | added | JungHwan Min | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 23, 2016 at 3:05 | history | asked | Soldalma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |