TIL:

someFuncReturningBool() && otherFuncReturningBool()

and

someFuncReturningBool() and otherFuncReturningBool()

is not the same. The former short-circuits, the latter doesn’t. That hit me unexpectedly when I thought “oh that’s nice, I can just use

and

instead of

&&

in my DSL to make it more human-readable”.

rule {
   condition {
      terms.assignmentAddress.isProvided() and
         terms.assignmentAddress.country.isNotSupported() // exception because access not allowed if isProvided() returns false
   }

   issue {
      "Terms: The address of the assignment is located in a country that is not supported."
   }
}

I presume there are only two ways to fix this. a) Use

&&

instead of

and

😥 b) Make all the functions which can be used in

condition {}

that currently return

Boolean

return something like

Condition

instead. That in turn would have an

and

infix operator which makes two

Condition

instances form a new

Condition

and thus allows for chaining with

and

. That would basically build a tree of

Condition

. I guess there are no alternatives for supporting

and

here?

You have to be careful,

and

is a bitwise operator not a boolean operator.

I know. Yet it's defined on

Boolean

, hence the confusion :)