Hi James,<br><br>Unfortunately it is not possible to emulating the short-circuiting behavour of the inbuilt &amp;&amp; and || operators, as both sides are just arguments to a function disguised as an operator.<br><br>However I do agree that this behaviour is unexpected to say the least, and terrible for other people looking at the code without knowing they aren&#39;t native booleans (and expecting short-circuiting operators). However it is hard to consider an alternative syntax which makes tribools looks anything like native booleans...<br>
<br>BTW, this is the very reason why Meyers (in More Effective C++) says to never overload boolean operators!<br><br>Alex<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/5/13 Jean-Pierre Bergamin &lt;james@ractive.ch&gt;:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello boost-users<br>
<br>
I just ran into quite a bad issue with boost::tribool. The overloaded<br>
operators &amp;&amp; and || may (and normally do) evaluate the righthand side of<br>
logical expressions although not needed/permitted. They i.e. evaluate the<br>
rhs expression in a conjunction where the first term is false.<br>
<br>
This leads of course to very surprising results. IMHO, the provided<br>
operators should be removed or should honor normal semantics.<br>
Shall I issue a bug-report? I think the current situation is quite<br>
unconvincingly.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
James<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Boost-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Boost-users@lists.boost.org">Boost-users@lists.boost.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users" target="_blank">http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>