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>
