forcing evaluation in if()

[Antonio]

> Yup. I just assumed the operands were bools in the first place..
> 
> Other workarounds include
> 
> cast(bool)a & cast(bool)b
> !!a & !!b
> a?b?1:0:b?0:0 // just kidding
> 
> Though, I think that if I wanted to always execute both sides, I'd put 
> that execution outside the if expression, it makes it far more obvious 
> what's going on.
> 
> auto a = something();
> auto b = somethingElse();
> if (a && b) {
>    ...
> }
> 
> 
> xs0

It's true:  the "correct" way is not to put "process" into "decission 
blocks".

But there is some cases where I prefer to do something like

    Recordset rd = new Recordset()
    Recordset rd2 = new Recordset()
    while( rd.Read() &&& rd2.Read() ) {
      doSomething( rd, rd2 );
    }
    // at this point, the number of Read()'s MUST BE the same
    // in rd and rd2


it's equivalent to:

    RecordSet rd = new RecordSet()
    RecordSet rd2 = new RecordSet()

    bool exists = rd.Read();
    bool exists2 = rd2.Read();
    while( exists && exists2 ) {
      doSomething( rd, rd2 );
      exists = rd.Read();
      exists2 = rd2.Read();
    }


Ok... you say it could be wrote as

    while( rd.Read() & rd2.Read() ) {

But & is "bit" tester, not a Logic evaluator... We are talking about a 
hight level programming language... we can use "invariants" 
"preconditions" "postconditions" and.... SURPRISSE... I have to use a 
"bit test" for "logic comparations"... no thanks..

Otherwhise... bit test could be "optimized" (if left side is 0, "&" 
allways evaluates to 0).

Sorry... I continue with my very poor english :-(.