Re: [RFC] Trailing Boolean Operators

This message went directly to me instead of the list, so I’ve added the list back to my reply. > On Feb 3, 2026, at 19:35, Len Woodward <len@artisan.build> wrote: > > I had originally written this RFC in markdown, and when I had claude migrate it for the wiki it > discarded a whole section I had in there about simply using leading operators instead. I've > added that back in and tagged a minor change. Pro-tip: pandoc can do Markdown-to-Dokuwiki conversion in a deterministic way, so you don’t have to worry about LLMs generating slop. pandoc -f markdown -t dokuwiki my-doc.md https://pandoc.org/ > The gist of the argument against simply using leading operators instead is that it doesn't > solve the problem -- It just moves it. There's always going to be a special reordering case. I see this as a feature and not a bug. Boolean operators control program flow. Whenever you add a new condition, you should have to think about reordering (because you might really need to reorder the conditions), or you should consider splitting up the logic so that it is more maintainable. > ps. When replying to the thread, I know I'm supposed to respond underneath the previous > content, but am I supposed to keep the entire history, or just the previous message? I'm > rereading the policies and the rfc:howto, and I can't find that section. Yes, you may truncate the original message and weave your reply between quotes, as I’ve done in this reply. Cheers, Ben

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Message signed with OpenPGP signature.asc