mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-10-05 14:46:55 +01:00
b6da405376
Lead with a complete plugin quick start and add task-oriented usage, troubleshooting, customization, and contribution guides. Preserve the broader plugin framing, correct conflicting contract guidance, support Agents folder reviews, and align repository validation. Convert existing sample references to clickable links without changing knowledge rules. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
36 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
36 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: performance
|
|
keywords: [short-circuit, lazy-evaluation, boolean-operators, nested-if, guard, and-operator, or-operator, xor-operator, early-exit]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# AL boolean operators do not short-circuit
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
AL gives no short-circuit (lazy) evaluation guarantee for `and`, `or`, and `xor`: every operand of a boolean expression is evaluated, even when the leftmost operand already determines the result. Neither the AL operators documentation nor the boolean operators documentation defines a lazy evaluation order, so code must not depend on one. Developers arriving from C#, JavaScript, or SQL routinely assume the left operand guards the right; in AL it does not. `xor` is not actually a short-circuit candidate in any language — its result depends on both operands regardless of their values, so there is nothing to skip — but AL still evaluates both operands unconditionally, so neither should carry a cost or a risk the developer assumed the other would guard against. For `and` and `or`, the right operand still runs even when the left already decides the result, so its cost is paid on every evaluation, and a check intended to protect an unsafe expression — an array subscript, a division, a field read that is only valid after a successful `Get` — does not protect it.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
For an `and`-shaped guard — a condition that must hold before the next operand is safe or worth evaluating — split into nested `if` statements: the guarding or cheapest condition in the outer `if`, the dependent or expensive one in the inner `if`. This preserves the result, since `if A then if B then Action` matches `if A and B then Action` exactly. Where there is no `else` branch, nesting is a pure win; where there is one, extract the conditions into a helper procedure that exits early instead.
|
|
|
|
For an `or`-shaped condition, do not nest: nesting `if A then if B then Action` drops the case where `A` is true and `B` is false, silently changing the result of `A or B`. Exit as soon as the cheap or safe operand already decides the outcome, and reach the other operand only on the path where it can still change the result — `if A then exit(true); exit(B);` for a boolean return, or `if A then Action else if B then Action;` when both branches share one action.
|
|
|
|
`xor` has no equivalent rewrite, because its result always depends on both operands; the only actionable guidance is to keep both operands of an `xor` cheap and free of side effects, since AL evaluates both unconditionally.
|
|
|
|
Where a chain of `and`-guards runs past about three conditions, stop nesting and use a `case` statement instead — see `case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.md`. Keep `and` and `or` for operands that are independently safe and cheap — in-memory field comparisons, enum tests, bound checks — where combining them reads better and costs nothing.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`boolean-operators-do-not-short-circuit.good.al`](boolean-operators-do-not-short-circuit.good.al).
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
A single condition that joins a guard with an operand depending on that guard, or with an expensive operand, using `and` or `or`. The consequence is either wasted work on every evaluation — a database call or validation procedure invoked even when the outcome is already decided — or a runtime error or silently wrong result that the guard was written to prevent. Applying the `and` fix to an `or` condition is a distinct mistake: rewriting `A or B` as nested `if`s drops the `A`-true/`B`-false case instead of preserving it. Detection signals: an operand that indexes an array or list with a variable whose bounds are checked in a sibling operand; `Record.Get(...)` or a `Find`/`IsEmpty` call as one operand of `and` with a field read of the same record as another; an expensive or unsafe operand combined with `or` next to a condition that alone already makes the result true; a boolean-returning procedure call combined with a cheap field test. The pattern is common in code ported from a language that does short-circuit, and in conditions grown by appending a clause to an existing `if`.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`boolean-operators-do-not-short-circuit.bad.al`](boolean-operators-do-not-short-circuit.bad.al).
|
|
|
|
## See also
|
|
|
|
`case-true-of-for-long-condition-chains.md` covers what to do when nesting an `and`-guard chain would go more than about three levels deep. `microsoft/knowledge/performance/apply-guards-before-get.md` covers the related ordering rule for statements rather than operands.
|