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>
Applies NKarolak's review suggestion: a case value set needs no parentheses
around a comparison.
Encodes the rationale in the Best Practice section, since it is a real
advantage of the pattern and is not documented elsewhere in the repo. The AL
operator hierarchy places and/xor above the comparison operators and or just
above them too, so parentheses are mandatory in an and chain — A = B and
C = D misparses without them — while a case value set has no and to bind
tighter and needs none. That inverts the precedence most developers arrive
with from C#.
Also notes in the bad sample that its parentheses are not optional, so the
two samples contrast on parentheses as well as on evaluation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Review decision: all five conditions share one action, so they share one
comma-separated value set with a single exit(false).
Aligns the article's Best Practice with the sample — it previously told
authors to keep side-effecting conditions in their own value set, which the
sample no longer does — and drops the now-contradictory wording about listing
the failure action per condition.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Review feedback: the five value sets sharing exit(false) should be comma
separated. Applied to the three that are pure field reads with no order
dependency.
The Get and the Blocked read keep their own value sets. The documentation
guarantees that the first matching value set executes, which orders matching
across separate value sets; it says nothing about evaluation within one
comma-separated set, and the natural lowering of that is an equality-or
chain — where AL's or does not short-circuit. Grouping the Get with the
checks that must precede it would rest the sample's correctness on
undocumented behaviour, which is the defect these two articles exist to
prevent.
Encodes the boundary in the Best Practice section so the grouping is applied
where it is safe and not where it is not, and scopes the repeated-exit
detection signal explicitly to nested chains so the case sample does not read
as its own anti-pattern.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Follow-up from PR review: nested if is the right answer for two or three
dependent conditions, but past that the nesting becomes the problem. AL's
case statement is the flat alternative — the control statements
documentation states a value set "must be an expression or a range" and
that the first matching value set executes, so case true of / case false of
accept boolean expressions and stop at the first match. That is the
laziness the boolean operators do not provide.
Adds case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.md with good/bad AL companions:
case false of for guard chains where every condition must hold, case true of
for first-match dispatch. The bad sample shows both failure shapes — a
five-level if ladder, and the worse escape of collapsing it into an and
chain, which trades nesting for a real defect.
Cross-links both articles, and adds the threshold to the short-circuit
article's Best Practice so following it does not lead to a deep ladder.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
