Re: New GNULIB glob module?

Derek Price <[email protected]> writes:

> Are you sure?  You asked me to restore similar parens around bit-ands
> back at several other locations despite other work that changed the
> lines, in an earlier email.  Not that I disagree now.  I actually prefer
> the version without the unnecessary parens around the  bit-and.  I just
> think we should be consistent.

It's a minor point, but expressions like (a & b && c) are assumed to
be confusing, as they depend on obscure precedence rules, whereas
expressions like (a & b ? c : d) are not confusing in the same way:
there's only one way to parse them, even if you have forgotten the
precedence.