Help improve program for parsing simple rules

[Paul McGuire]

On Apr 17, 1:26 pm, Aaron Brady <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, not to offend; I don't know your background.  

Courtesy on Usenet!!!  I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket!

Not to worry, I'm a big boy.  People have even called my baby ugly,
and I manage to keep my blood pressure under control.

> One thing I like
> about Python is it and the docs are careful about short-circuiting
> conditions.  ISTR that C left some of those details up to the compiler
> at one point.
>
> >>> def f():
>
> ...     print( 'in f' )
> ...     return 10
> ...>>> 0<f()<20
>
> in f
> True>>> 0<f() and f()<20
>
> in f
> in f
> True
>
> Therefore, if op{n} has side effects, 'op1 operator1 op2 AND op2
> operator2 op3' is not equivalent to 'op1 optor1 op2 optor2 op3'.

Interesting point, but I don't remember that "A < B < C" is valid C
syntax, are you perhaps thinking of a different language?

By luck, my implementation of EvalComparisonOp.eval does in fact
capture the post-eval value of op2, so that if its evaluation caused
any side effects, they would not be repeated.

-- Paul