Address correctness review: or/xor pattern, case value-set ordering

Fixes two points from JesperSchulz's review on PR #136.

1. boolean-operators-do-not-short-circuit.md gave one fix — nested if — for
   and, or, and xor alike. That's only correct for and: nesting if A then if
   B then Action drops the A-true/B-false case of A or B, silently changing
   the result. Gives or its own early-exit pattern (if A then exit(true);
   exit(B)), warns explicitly against applying the and-rewrite to or, and
   clarifies that xor is not a short-circuit candidate in any language since
   its result always depends on both operands. Adds an or fixture
   (IsEligibleForFreeShipping) to both samples so an agent has a concrete
   pattern to match instead of extrapolating from the and-only examples.

2. case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.md derived stop-at-first-match for
   one comma-separated value set from the documentation's guarantee about
   the first matching value set — plural, i.e. ordering across value sets,
   which is not the same claim. The good sample's Item.Get / Blocked pair
   depended on the one the docs don't make. Restructures the sample to only
   comma-group the three pure, order-independent checks; Get and Blocked
   keep their own value sets, in order, relying solely on the guarantee that
   is actually documented. Description and Anti Pattern now state that
   boundary so it isn't re-collapsed later.

Also carries forward a parenthesis fix (not Item.Blocked in the collapsed
bad sample) that was made two commits ago but never landed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

community/knowledge/performance/case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.md

@@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ application-area: [all]
 
 ## Description
 
-Because AL gives no short-circuit guarantee for `and` and `or`, a chain of conditions that must be evaluated in order has to be sequenced with nested `if` statements — and past three conditions the nesting itself becomes the problem: the body drifts right, the order of evaluation is carried by indentation alone, and any shared failure path is repeated at every level. AL's `case` statement is the flat alternative. Its value sets "must be an expression or a range", so `case true of` and `case false of` accept arbitrary boolean expressions, and the statement "is evaluated, and the first matching value set executes the associated statement" — evaluation stops at the first match, which is exactly the laziness the boolean operators do not provide.
+Because AL gives no short-circuit guarantee for `and` and `or`, a chain of conditions that must be evaluated in order has to be sequenced with nested `if` statements — and past three conditions the nesting itself becomes the problem: the body drifts right, the order of evaluation is carried by indentation alone, and any shared failure path is repeated at every level. AL's `case` statement is the flat alternative. Its value sets "must be an expression or a range", so `case true of` and `case false of` accept arbitrary boolean expressions, and the statement "is evaluated, and the first matching value set executes the associated statement" — evaluation stops at the first matching value set, which is exactly the laziness the boolean operators do not provide. That guarantee is stated for value sets, plural: it orders evaluation *across* separate value sets, and says nothing about the order of the individual expressions listed inside one comma-separated value set.
 
 ## Best Practice
 
-Sequence two or three dependent conditions with nested `if`. Beyond that, switch to `case`: use `case false of` for a chain of guards where every condition must hold, letting control fall past `end` when all of them pass; use `case true of` for first-match dispatch, where each later probe runs only if the earlier ones did not match. Conditions that share an action are comma-separated into a single value set, one per line, so the chain reads as one ordered list with one failure action instead of repeating that action per condition. A value set also needs no parentheses around a comparison, unlike an operand of `and` or `or`: the AL operator hierarchy places `and` and `or` above the comparison operators, so parentheses are mandatory there and the chain fills up with them. This keeps every condition at one indentation level, makes evaluation order explicit rather than implied by nesting, and preserves the stop-at-first-match behaviour. It also aligns with the AL programming convention that more than two alternatives belong in a `case` statement rather than an `if-then-else`.
+Sequence two or three dependent conditions with nested `if`. Beyond that, switch to `case`: use `case false of` for a chain of guards where every condition must hold, letting control fall past `end` when all of them pass; use `case true of` for first-match dispatch, where each later probe runs only if the earlier ones did not match. Comma-separate conditions into one value set only when every one of them is a pure, order-independent test with no side effect — a field comparison, an enum check, a bound test — so it makes no difference whether AL evaluates all of them or stops early; grouping these costs nothing and removes the repeated action. A condition that guards another, or that carries a side effect or a cost of its own — a `Get`, a `Find`, a procedure call — keeps its own value set, placed immediately after the value set it depends on, so the code relies only on the ordering the documentation actually states. A value set needs no parentheses around a comparison, unlike an operand of `and` or `or`: the AL operator hierarchy places `and` and `or` above the comparison operators, so parentheses are mandatory there and the chain fills up with them. This keeps every condition at one indentation level, makes evaluation order explicit rather than implied by nesting, and preserves the stop-at-first-match behaviour it relies on. It also aligns with the AL programming convention that more than two alternatives belong in a `case` statement rather than an `if-then-else`.
 
 See sample: `case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.good.al`.
 
 ## Anti Pattern
 
-An `if` ladder four or more levels deep whose only purpose is sequencing guards. Detection: a chain of nested `if` statements with no `else`, each condition guarding the one below it, terminating in a single action or `exit`; or the same `exit`/`error` duplicated at every level of such a nested chain, purely to escape it. The second, worse form is collapsing that ladder into one `and` chain to escape the nesting — that trades indentation for a real defect, because the operands are still all evaluated. Reach for `case` instead of either.
+An `if` ladder four or more levels deep whose only purpose is sequencing guards. Detection: a chain of nested `if` statements with no `else`, each condition guarding the one below it, terminating in a single action or `exit`; or the same `exit`/`error` duplicated at every level of such a nested chain, purely to escape it. The second, worse form is collapsing that ladder into one `and` chain to escape the nesting — that trades indentation for a real defect, because the operands are still all evaluated. A third, subtler form is over-applying the comma-grouping itself: putting a guard and the condition it protects — for example `Item.Get(...)` and a read of a field on that same record — into one comma-separated value set. That relies on an evaluation order within a single value set that the documentation does not state; keep them in separate value sets instead. Reach for `case` over nested `if` or a collapsed `and` chain, and keep order-dependent conditions in their own value sets within it.
 
 See sample: `case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.bad.al`.