In article <3BBA7764.458FBFCF@b.c>, "a" <a@b.c> wrote:

> 	Funny, I always thought that the precedence of boolean operators were
> as well understood and standard as those of addition and multiplication.
>  Should we require explicit parens around all infix and unary
> operations?
> 	I had AND taught to me as boolean multiplication and OR taught as
> boolean addition.  XOR and implication was always a bit of gray area,
> but AND and OR were well defined.  I'd hate to clutter the expressions
> in the cases were it isn't really needed.

Yes, most of the problems seem occur when mixing other things in, e.g., &, &&, ^, <<, etc.

a wrote:

> Ben Cohen wrote:
>
>> In article <9pbvn5$1bes$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Roberto
>> Mariottini" <mario@jonathan.torino.artis.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <9p29du$233h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter"
>>> <walter@digitalmars.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> gcc suggests to use explicit parenthesis aound && within
>>>  ||, and I think this should be mandatory for D.
>>>
>> I agree.  Some C style guides recommend doing this sort of
>>  thing.   Rather than changing the precedence, we can
>> just remove it.
>>
>
> 	Funny, I always thought that the precedence of boolean
> operators were as well understood and standard as those of
> addition and multiplication.  Should we require explicit
> parens around all infix and unary operations?   	I had AND
> taught to me as boolean multiplication and OR taught as boolean
>  addition.  XOR and implication was always a bit of gray
> area, but AND and OR were well defined.  I'd hate to
> clutter the expressions in the cases were it isn't really
> needed.
>
> Dan
>
In the context of mathematical logic, I was taught that they had the same precedence, and that parenthesis was always required if both operations were preformed.