forcing evaluation in if()

[Pragma]

Antonio wrote:
> 
>> 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

Actually, for the "follows" operation, isn't that the same as:

auto x = a; // evaluate a
if(x ? b : !x){
   // do something
}

It makes me wonder if the '?' could be granted a shorthand to cover this?

Something like:
   a ? b

Which would be the same as:
   a ? b : !a

Only without the redundant evaluation of a.

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo