Issue 96084 - X && Y || Z, did we really mean to say that
Summary: X && Y || Z, did we really mean to say that
Status: ACCEPTED
Alias: None
Product: porting
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: DEV300m35
Hardware: All Linux, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: 4.x
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 95379 96055 96058 96059 96083 96086 96087 96089 96099 96101 96103 96105 96106 96109 96110 96111 96112 96113 96114 96133 96140 96141 96146 96155 96163 96164 96165 96604 96621 96624 96636 96834 97536 97538 99764 99765 99766 99767 99770 99774 100368 100412 100480 100481 100484 100487 100502 100517 101060 101062 101063 101111 101112 101127 101455 101517 101952 101990 102358 102736 102737 102742 103304 103305 103617 103713 103714 104370 105117 105732 105734 105738 106389 108603 108606 108607 108608 108919 110717 110801 110802 110803 111801 112824 112871 113181 113185 113190 113310 113311 113314 113316 113317 113318 113319 113321 113322 113324 113325 113327 113329 113331 113332 114673
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2008-11-11 09:14 UTC by caolanm
Modified: 2017-05-20 11:35 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: TASK
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
demo mega patch, need to go through the subissue dodgy looking comparisons before locking-in existing meaning (317.07 KB, patch)
2008-11-12 17:04 UTC, caolanm 		no flags Details | Diff
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description caolanm 2008-11-11 09:14:03 UTC 
Confusion around precedence rules with X && Y || Z

it is of course 
(X && Y) || Z
but a common mistake is to believe it is 
X && (Y || Z)
Comment 1 caolanm 2008-11-11 09:14:33 UTC 
tracker
Comment 2 caolanm 2008-11-12 17:04:07 UTC 
Created attachment 57950 [details]
demo mega patch, need to go through the subissue dodgy looking comparisons before locking-in existing meaning
Comment 3 thorsten.ziehm 2009-11-04 12:46:27 UTC 
OOo 3.2 is in showstopper phase. What's with this issue? It is targeted for OOo
3.2. Is it still valid for this target? If it isn't please change the target
accordingly. Thx
Comment 4 caolanm 2009-11-04 12:52:44 UTC 
Perhaps a more pertinent question is to follow up on the "fixed" issues here
which are lingering in workspaces which don't look like they're ever going to
see the light day :-)
Comment 5 Martin Hollmichel 2011-03-16 11:21:02 UTC 
set target 3.x since not relevant for 3.4 release.
Comment 6 Marcus 2017-05-20 11:35:20 UTC 
Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org".