Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I wasn't sure where we landed in the discussion on "how much crazy stuff > to support". But AFAIK, the code in this iteration handles every crazy > case already except this one. If we're going to care about OR, maybe we > should just cover all cases. I think I was the only one who didn't like the tool knowing more boolean logic then the mere mortal user. As long as the resulting behaviour appears logically consistent to more math minded people, I am actually OK if the outcome to overly complex input feels "too magical" ;-) And it appears that not short-circuiting AND will make the result better in that respect, so I am all for the suggestion above.
