On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:45:43 +0100 (BST), Philip Hazel wrote:
>On Mon, 12 May 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>
>> You must be a mathematician specializing in Boolean logic. ;-)
>
>I was once a mathematician, but I never studied Boolean logic in those
>days.
But that still explains much. :-)
>> One last question: Do the implicit AND/OR association "weights" ("AND"
>> stronger than "OR") apply? I.e. "c OR a AND b" == "c OR (a AND b)"? Or do
we
>> have a strict left-to-right logic, i.e. "c OR a AND b" == "(c OR a) AND b"?
>
>The ORs and ANDs are just another way of trying to understand what
>something means. The implementation is strictly left-to-right. It's all
Thanks for clarifying this.
>in the manual:
Well, yes, but it's sort of, err, abstract. *Quite* abstract, if you ask me,
especially if I try to understand it late in the night. :-)
Thanks as always for your patience.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
L I N U X .~.
The Choice /V\
of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
