Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I wasn't sure where we landed in the discussion on "how much crazy stuff
to support". But AFAIK, the code in this iteration handles every crazy
case already except this one. If we're going to care about OR, maybe we
should just cover all cases.
I think I was the only one who didn't like the tool knowing more
boolean logic then the mere mortal user. As long as the resulting
behaviour appears logically consistent to more math minded people, I
am actually OK if the outcome to overly complex input feels "too
magical" ;-)
And it appears that not short-circuiting AND will make the result
better in that respect, so I am all for the suggestion above.