In relaying the story of eager Boolean operators, it is best to begin with their more ubiquitous siblings, short-circuiting logical Boolean operators. This is perhaps best achieved with an example:

true || Seriously ( this ( is ( valid ( Ruby ! )))) # => true false && 0 / 0 # => false

In Ruby, and many other common programming languages,1 the Boolean operators used for chaining together logical expressions are designed to minimize the amount of work required to determine the outcome of a logical expression. More specifically, when determining the outcome of a logical expression as few of the statements in the expression will be evaluated as possible. In the previous example, this notion, known as short-circuit evaluation, is exploited to include some very bad code in a manner that renders that bad code completely innocuous.

In the first example, the short-circuiting behavior of the || Boolean operator, representing a logical OR or logical disjunction operation, prevents a series of undefined methods from causing a fatal NoMethodError exception. This code can safely be executed because when the first argument of an OR operation is true then the overall value of the expression must also be true. Put more simply, true OR anything will always result in true. Given this logical maxim, at runtime the program does not need to execute the right-hand side of the expression and can move on without executing the explosive code.

Similarly, in the second example, the short-circuiting behavior of the && Boolean operator, representing a logical AND or logical conjunction operation, prevents a fatal ZeroDivisionError exception. This code can safely be executed because when the first argument of an AND operation is false then the overall value of the expression must also be false. In simpler terms, false AND anything will always result in false. Given this basic tenant of Boolean logic, at runtime the program can decide the outcome of the logical expression without executing the subversive right-hand side of the expression.

It's interesting to note that, because of their short-circuiting behavior, the || and && Boolean operators are more than just logical operators, they actually also function as control structures. To demonstrate this, though the previous example used Boolean operators, it could just have easily have been written with more traditional flow control structures like if or unless:

# The true result is lost, but we weren't storing it anyway, so no problemo. Seriously ( this ( is ( valid ( Ruby ! )))) unless true # => nil # Again, the result of false is lost, but for this example that's okay. 0 / 0 if false # => nil

Eager Boolean operators come into play when someone inevitably asks the question, "what if we don't want to short-circuit?"

Eager Boolean Operators

As their name suggests, eager Boolean operators are logical operators that do not short-circuit. Instead, even when the outcome of a logical expression is determined, they continue to execute the logical expression until it has been fully evaluated. If we changed our example of short-circuiting Boolean operators to use eager Boolean operators instead, we'd no longer be safe from that sinister code. Here it is again as such with a couple of other tweaks:

begin true | Seriously ( this ( is ( valid ( Ruby ! )))) rescue NoMethodError => e e . class end # => NoMethodError begin false & 0 / 0 rescue ZeroDivisionError => e e . class end # => ZeroDivisionError

In the first example above, I've modified the earlier example to replace the || Boolean operator with an alternative Boolean operator included in Ruby that offers eager evaluation of logical OR expressions, |. Though more commonly used for bitwise operations, when used with true, false, or nil, the | operator functions similarly to its counterpart, ||, except without the short-circuiting behavior. Evidence of this eager evaluation behavior can be seen above in that the outcome of the begin block is not true, as would be the case if | were a short circuiting operator, but it is instead the exception class we would expect to be raised if the right-hand side of the logical expression had been evaluated.

Similarly, in the second example above, I've modified the earlier example and replaced the && Boolean operator with Ruby's eager Boolean AND operator, &. Also more commonly used in bitwise expressions, when used with true, false, or nil, the & operator behaves similarly to its short-circuiting cousin, &&, except that it eagerly evaluates the right-hand side of the logical expression even if the overall outcome of the expression has already been determined. Once again, this behavior can be seen in that the result of the begin block is the ZeroDivisionError class, which would only be the case if the right-hand side of the logical expression had been evaluated.

Though this example helps demonstrate the eager evaluation properties of the | and & Boolean operators, given its explosive nature, it doesn't offer much insight into how eager Boolean operators might be useful. Having addressed the question of "what if we don't want to short-circuit?", let us consider another question that may actually be a better answer to the question than the one I've just outlined: "why wouldn't you want to short-circuit?"

Bitwise digression

Before we look at a handful of examples of eager Boolean operators, I'd like to digress for a moment for a brief discussion of bitwise Boolean operators. Bitwise Boolean operators are operators like & and | that perform operations on Boolean values as though those Boolean values were bits or binary 0s and 1s, where false and nil are both 0 and true is 1. For example, consider the following truth table for the & bitwise operation that demonstrates the equivalence of the two operations.

Truth of & nil ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) true ( 1 ) nil ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) true ( 1 ) false ( 0 ) false ( 0 ) true ( 1 )

One behavior of bitwise Boolean operators worth noting is that they always return a Boolean value. Even if the second argument to a bitwise Boolean operator is truthy or falsy, or even if the first argument to the bitwise Boolean operator is falsy, as is the case with nil, the result of the expression will still be a Boolean value. This is in contrast to their logical Boolean counterparts who are more than content to return a truthy or falsy value in place of a strict Boolean value.

This behavior can be useful at times, but can certainly come as a surprise to those who are more familiar with the more ubiquitous logical Boolean operators and their penchant for returning truthy and falsy values. The behavior of bitwise Boolean operators can also surprise the unaware in that unlike the logical Boolean operators which can be invoked with any two values, the bitwise Boolean operators must be invoked with either true, false, or nil on the left-hand side of the expression, otherwise, an error or other unexpected behavior will occur.

In terms of eager Boolean operators, the bitwise Boolean operators are important because the eager Boolean operators are a sort of subset of the bitwise Boolean operators. The & and | operators are both bitwise Boolean operators, but in the cases of true | anything and false & anything they are also eager Boolean operators. If this is unclear, the following examples may help.

Eager Boolean Operators in Practice

Let's look at a couple of examples of eager Boolean operators in practice. After we've considered a couple of examples, perhaps we'll be better prepared to take a step back and get more clarity on what aspects or behaviors of eager evaluation are exploited by these examples in the name of utility. I've done what I can to try to find examples of eager Boolean operators out in the wild, but I've not had enormous success. To that end, I've tried to evaluate and order the examples below in terms of utility. Some examples are mine, some come from more popular libraries.

Enumerable#eager_all?

The first example is far and away the best use-case I've found for both bitwise and eager Boolean operators that I've come across. The example below uses the bitwise AND operator, &, to create a version of Enumerable#all? that is guaranteed to evaluate all elements in a collection. This is different from the normal behavior of Enumerable#all? in that Enumerable#all? normally discontinues evaluation of the collection as soon as any element in the collection returns false for the provided block.

module Enumerable def eager_all? inject ( true ) do | result , item | result & ( block_given? ? yield ( item ) : item ) end end end

This example leverages the & operator to ensure that the right-hand side of the logical expression is always evaluated. This behavior is combined with Enumerable#inject to ensure that all elements of the collection are evaluated, ultimately accumulating to the correct result.

The astute among you may have noticed that this example could alternatively have used the short-circuiting && Boolean operator by flipping the operands like so:

module Enumerable def alternative_eager_all? inject ( true ) do | result , item | ( block_given? ? yield ( item ) : item ) && result end end end

Though this is true, at runtime this alternative approach draws attention to the bitwise nature of the & operator as compared to its short-circuiting cousin, &&, a difference in nature which I think in this case gives the eager Boolean operator the edge. The bitwise nature I refer to is, as I mentioned before and as is demonstrated below, eager Boolean operators will always return true or false while the short-circuiting Boolean operators could return any object depending on the operator and the arguments given to it. We don't have to worry about any object in the alternative example since the result of the yield combined with true or false using &&, but we do have to worry about one other object, nil. Because of the short-circuiting nature of &&, if the result of the yield is nil, the result of the call to alternative_eager_all? will also result in nil as demonstrated below:

[ false , nil ]. eager_all? # => false [ false , nil ]. alternative_eager_all? # => nil

Given that nil is also falsy, this isn't really a problem, but I think it does make alternative_eager_all? less robust than it could be.

Another way the nil case could be handled without resorting to using an eager Boolean operator is by double negating the result of the inject call to ensure that a Boolean is returned. That would look like this:

module Enumerable def alternative_eager_all? !! inject ( true ) do | result , item | ( block_given? ? yield ( item ) : item ) && result end end end

Though the practice of double negation is pretty common, as it turns out, the coercive nature of the bitwise Boolean operators is actually slightly faster than the more idiomatic double negation. Consider this benchmark generated using the benchmark-ips gem:

require "benchmark/ips" Benchmark . ips do | bm | bm . config ( :time => 20 , :warmup => 5 ) bm . report ( "Double negate" ) { !! ( true && :a ) } bm . report ( "Logical bit-wise coerce" ) { true & :a } end # Calculating -------------------------------------------- # Double negate 138.008k i/100ms # Logical bit-wise coerce 139.350k i/100ms # -------------------------------------------------------- # Double negate 7.262M (± 1.0%) i/s - 36.434M # Logical bit-wise coerce 7.825M (± 1.3%) i/s - 39.157M # --------------------------------------------------------

The difference in performance between the two approaches is pretty negligible and certainly isn't substantial enough to merit choosing bitwise Boolean coercion over double negation. Keep in mind also that the bitwise coercion (if you want to call it that) to true or false is not without its downside. As I mentioned before, the coercive behavior of eager Boolean operators may come as a surprise for developers who are more familiar with the behavior of the more common short-circuiting logical Boolean operators.

Bringing before_suite type behavior to Minitest

The next example is a bit of questionable code of mine from a few years ago. In this example, I use the & eager Boolean operator in an attempt to emulate behavior similar to RSpec's #before_suite hook in a Minitest test case seeing as Minitest does not offer a similar behavior.

class SomeTest < Minitest :: TestCase setup { self . class . one_time_setup } def self . one_time_setup return if @setup_complete & @setup_complete ||= true # Some expensive or non-idempotent setup end def test_something # ... end end

At the time, I thought this was clever, probably because of its condensed nature, but a few years later and I can see that this code is excessively tricky and has obvious, though minor, inefficiencies. This example exploits two tricks to create a sort of switch that doesn't fire the first time it's evaluated, but will fire on all subsequent evaluations.

The first trick in this example takes advantage of the fact that accessing a nonexistent instance variable will never result in an error. The second trick takes advantage of the & operator to ensure that even when the @setup_complete instance variable is nil, a second statement is evaluated that will set @setup_complete to true, while still returning nil to the if statement. These two tricks allow for the described behavior as more concisely demonstrated below:

def first_time_only return if @not_first_time & @not_first_time ||= true "Hello world!" end first_time_only # => "Hello world!" first_time_only # => nil

The inefficiency of this approach that I referenced earlier is that the @not_first_time variable is going to be evaluated twice every time the first_time_only method is invoked, once on both the left and right hand sides of the & operator. Since this evaluation is cheap, it's not the end of the world, but it starts to beg a question that has been nagging me as I've become more familiar with bitwise and eager Boolean operators: When is chaining logical expressions using eager Boolean operators a better choice than just splitting the expression into two statements?

In terms of the first_time_only example above, the method could be rewritten like so by splitting the logical expression into two parts instead of relying on the tricky behavior of the & operator:

def first_time_only return if @not_first_time @not_first_time = true "Hello world!" end

Examples from the real world

I've led with two of my own examples not because of my acute egomania, but because frankly, I couldn't find many examples of bitwise Boolean operators, much less eager Boolean operators out there in the wild. Maybe there was a flaw in the regular expression I used to grep through the wealth of gems I've accumulated or maybe I've missed some genius examples in the noise of numerical bitwise expressions and Array intersections, I don't know.

In the end, I was only able to find 4 examples, and unfortunately, three of those four were similar enough (two were exactly the same!) to make it really only worth mentioning one. Making matters worse, I'm not convinced any of the examples are using eager or bitwise Boolean operators in an effective way. But again, maybe I'm missing something. You be the judge.

RubySpec: Three flavors of tainted?

The three very similar examples I mentioned above come from the now defunct RubySpec project. Each occurs while testing whether a String has become tainted following a slice operation [1] [2] or a concatenation using the + operator. The example testing concatenation with + is the shortest of the bunch, so let's have a look.

it "taints the result when self or other is tainted" do strs = [ "" , "OK" , StringSpecs :: MyString . new ( "" ), StringSpecs :: MyString . new ( "OK" )] strs += strs . map { | s | s . dup . taint } strs . each do | str | strs . each do | other | ( str + other ). tainted? . should == ( str . tainted? | other . tainted? ) end end end

In this example, a few instances of the String class and their tainted alter egos are created and then each of the instances is concatenated with each of the other instances using the + operator. For each concatenation produced, the result is tested to ensure that it is considered tainted if either of its parents were tainted. During the test to determine if a result String should be tainted or not, we find our bitwise Boolean friend, the | operator. But what advantage does the | operator offer in this situation over its short-circuiting counterpart, ||?

When str.tainted? is true, the result of parenthetical expression will be true, however, keep in mind that other.tainted? will still be evaluated, though the result will be discarded. Unless there is some hidden side effect of calling other.tainted? at this point in the test, this seems like extraneous work to me. If there is a side effect to calling other.tainted? at this point in the test, that's a whole other problem because it seems quite possible that whatever that side effect is, it could have impacted the outcome of (str + other).tainted?, in which case, who knows what's really being tested. All this taken into account, I'm inclined to believe that short-circuiting would be desirable alternative in this case.

Conversely, when str.tainted? is false, the result of the parenthetical expression depends entirely on the outcome of other.tainted?. This may seem good in that when other.tainted? is true, the parenthetical expression will be true and when other.tainted? is false, the parenthetical expression will be false. However, as we discussed earlier, the eager Boolean operators only return true or false unlike their short-circuiting counterparts. This means that other.tainted? could return :wtf? or nil and the parenthetical expression would evaluate to true or false, respectively. Perhaps this coercion to true or false was the goal in choosing | over ||, but in a test, particularly a test aimed at describing how the language itself should work, this seems like a bad idea to me.

Overall, it seems like || would be a much better choice here than |, as it ensures the minimal amount of evaluation is performed while also ensuring that the output values of both str.tainted? and other.tainted? are tested for validity.

Ruby: k-nucleotide benchmark

The final example we'll look at is a Ruby implementation of the k-nucleotide benchmark. Unchanged since it was added to the Ruby source tree in 2007, bm_so_k_nucelotide.rb utilizes the eager Boolean operator & to read lines from a file until a line is encountered that starts with ">".

while ( line !~ /^>/ ) & line do seq << line . chomp line = input . gets end

The purpose of this code is fairly straightforward, however what is less clear, is the utility of taking the eager logical conjunction (&) of (line !~ /^>/) and line.

When the result of the !~ operation results in false, the right-hand side of the expression will be evaluated and the result discarded. It's important to keep in mind that this will only happen once because the result of false will end the loop, but more generally speaking, in circumstances similar to this there's no reason to waste CPU time extraneously evaluating the right-hand side of the expression. We can be pretty confidant that this operation is wasteful because the value of line has no impact on the outcome of the logical expression and since we know that line is a reference to an object and not a method call, we know that the evaluation of line should not cause any side effects that might be worth preserving. Again though, since the eager evaluation is only going to happen once for this loop, it's really not of great concern.

The case when the !~ expression evaluates to true is a little trickier. One would think that when the left-hand side of the expression evaluates to true, there would be no point in evaluating line as we might expect that the value of line is a String that will be coerced into true by &. However, the !~ operator is defined for more than just instances of String. In fact, true, false, nil, and anything that inherits from Object all implement the complement method to !~, =~, and by default they all return a value of nil for =~. This means that in most cases the !~ operator will be negating nil which means the left-hand side is going to evaluate to true in a lot of cases we might not expect.

In reality though, I suspect that the real reason the right-hand side of the expression is included is as a guard against line having a value of nil. If this is the case, then the only reason to choose & over && would be the ability of & to coerce truthy values to true. If the result of the expression were being stored, this might make sense, however, since the result of the expression is being used as the condition for a while loop, it seems unlikely that this coercion would yield any perceivable benefit. As such, I think && would be a better choice here because it is more familiar to most programmers and it will still guard against nil values.

In the event that a value of true is easier for while statement to consume than other truthy values, we can always flip the condition around like so:

while line && ( line !~ /^>/ ) do # ... end

This arrangement has the added benefit of removing the need for the parentheses and short-circuiting the !~ operation in situations where line is falsy.

But why stop there? Why explicitly guard against nil and false at all? Especially when every other Object out in the Ruby universe is going to slip right past this check, resulting in a NoMethodError when the program attempts to call chomp on an object that doesn't support chomp. When it comes down to it, the condition of this while loop is pretty inadequate.

A lot of the problem with the condition comes from the negation of the =~ operation, what if we could avoid that? Given the regular expression of /^>/, it would seem that we're on the lookout for any line that starts with ">". But, what if, instead, we changed the condition such that it were true as long as a line started with anything other than ">"? This can be achieved by modifying the regular expression and would change the while loop to look like so:

while line =~ /^[^>]/ do # ... end

Though the regular expression is more complex, I think the whole expression is much easier to reason about without the negation, extra logical expression, and parentheses.

I've gotten a little off topic here, so we should move on, but before we do so, here are a few benchmarks generated using the benchmark-ips gem for the &, &&, and altered Regexp versions of the while loop when run in the actual context of the nucleotide benchmark:

# Calculating ---------------------------------------------- # & 2.000 i/100ms # && 2.000 i/100ms # Alternate Regexp 3.000 i/100ms # ---------------------------------------------------------- # & 27.538 (± 3.6%) i/s - 550.000 # && 28.092 (± 3.6%) i/s - 562.000 # Alternate Regexp 29.000 (± 3.4%) i/s - 582.000 # ----------------------------------------------------------

Very minor performance differences, but another case where bitwise Boolean operators don't seem to be the best choice for the job.

Optimization by branch avoidance

Having been through a few examples of eager Boolean operators in Ruby, I imagine you're opinions on the matter are starting to coalesce, I know mine certainly are. Though I started this article to get a better understanding of when and why one might want to use eager Boolean operators, the more research I've done, the more the question for me has become "Why would I ever want to use bitwise or eager Boolean operators?"

If you looked at the list of programming languages that support both short-circuiting and eager Boolean operators I referenced earlier, you may have noticed that quite a few languages support both types of operators. This seems like a clue that there is a strong reason to have both types of operators. However, perhaps my Google-fu failed me, but I really couldn't find a strong argument for using eager Boolean operators.

The best argument I came across that we haven't already discussed in some form comes from a Stack Overflow question asking about the difference between the || operator and the | operator. All the way down 8 or 9 answers in is an answer from Peter Lawrey that I think has some merit. Peter writes:

Maybe use [eager Boolean operators] when you have very simple boolean expressions and the cost of short cutting (i.e. a branch) is greater than the time you save by not evaluating the later expressions.

I was certainly intrigued by this idea, especially since one of the commenters on Peter's answer claimed to have actually come across this behavior on some CPUs.

I could see this type of behavior pretty easily existing in a lower level language like C, but I had reservations about whether or not something that must be a pretty minor micro-optimization could bubble all the way up into a higher level language like Ruby. To find out, I put together the following benchmark, again making use of the benchmark-ips gem:

require "benchmark/ips" Benchmark . ips do | bm | bm . config ( :time => 20 , :warmup => 5 ) bm . report ( ";" ) { true ; true } bm . report ( "&&" ) { true && true } bm . report ( "&" ) { true & true } end

The goal of this benchmark is to use the simplest case possible to get an idea of the cost of branching compared to a more strict eager evaluation alternative. To this end, both the && and & operators are benchmarked. In addition, to provide a baseline, the benchmarks also include a version that simply evaluates true twice to ensure a benchmark that includes no branching or other silly business. I found the results surprising:

# Calculating ------------------------- # ; 131.478k i/100ms # && 128.222k i/100ms # & 126.305k i/100ms # ------------------------------------- # ; 9.346M (± 3.4%) i/s - 186.699M # && 8.867M (± 3.2%) i/s - 177.075M # & 7.812M (± 2.6%) i/s - 156.113M # -------------------------------------

I wasn't surprised to find that & wasn't faster than &&, but what did surprise me was how much slower & actually was compared to &&, especially in a case where I expected there to be a fairly negligible difference. It's pretty clear from this benchmark that, at least in Ruby, any branching that's avoided by using the & operator is insignificant in comparison to other overhead. But what could that other overhead be? Though it may surprise you, that overhead is a method call. Say what?

Holy method calls, Batman!

As it turns out, in the case of Boolean values, bitwise operators like & and | aren't so much operators as they are methods on TrueClass, FalseClass, and NilClass! Consider for example the C source of the bitwise | method on TrueClass:

static VALUE true_or ( VALUE obj , VALUE obj2 ) { return Qtrue ; }

View on GitHub

Thankfully, this is one of the simplest examples of Ruby's C source you'll come across. Though it's simple to read, the nuance of what is going on here is a little more complicated. The true_or method is simply a method that takes two arguments (actually only one really since the first argument will always be the true singleton), and regardless of what those arguments are, returns true. What may not be completely obvious from this code is how this method implementation leads to the eager evaluation of the right-hand side of a logical expression.

Throughout this article we've treated | like a primitive operator, perhaps if we treat it more like a method call, it will make it more obvious how this simple method equates to eager evaluation. Let's consider something along the lines of the simplest possible case and while we're at it, let's see if || is also implemented as a method on TrueClass. Let's see what happens if we try to use Object#send:

true . send ( "||" , true ) # => NoMethodError: undefined method `||' for true:TrueClass true . send ( "|" , true ) # => true

Interesting! So we've learned that || is not a method, but must be a more primitive operator. Additionally, we can see much more clearly now that | is definitely a method of TrueClass.

With some closer examination, this example should also help make it clear how implementing TrueClass#| as a method call leads to eager evaluation. Though the argument we passed to TrueClass#| in the example above was a primitive true value, it could have been any arbitrary Ruby expression. Unlike || which could completely ignore the right-hand side of the expression when the left-hand side of the operation is true, TrueClass#| cannot skip the right-hand side of the expression because it is a method call. In fact, before TrueClass#| is invoked, the RubyVM has already evaluated the right-hand side of the expression, reducing it to the value that will be used as the argument to TrueClass#|.

So, that's the magic behind one of the eager bitwise Boolean operators, what about one of the bitwise Boolean operators? How is that implemented? Is it also a method call? As it turns out, yes. Consider the implementation of TrueClass#&:

static VALUE true_and ( VALUE obj , VALUE obj2 ) { return RTEST ( obj2 )? Qtrue :Qfalse ; }

View on GitHub

Thankfully, this method is also pretty easy to read. It's a little more complicated than TrueClass#|, but it's pretty easy to see that the method evaluates the RTEST macro on obj2 and returns true or false depending on the outcome of that evaluation. I won't go into the inner workings of RTEST, but you can view the C source for the RTEST macro here if you're interested. Basically, RTEST uses a couple of numeric bitwise operations to determine if its argument is false or nil and if not returns true, which in turn causes true_and to do the same.

Okay, so given all that, it should make more sense that using a bitwise/eager Boolean operator would be slower than a more primitive operator. Unfortunately though, slower execution is not the only drawback of these these method-based bitwise Boolean operators.

Inconsistent precedence

The fundamentally different nature of the method-based bitwise Boolean operators and the more primitive logical Boolean operators is unfortunately not without consequence. The overhead of a method call is only one consequence. Another consequence is that the bitwise Boolean operators have a different precedence than their logical cousins.

I won't get into the nature of precedence, or order of operations, in this article, but I will offer these examples for your consideration:

true || 1 && 3 # => true true | 1 && 3 # => 3 # wtf? # `true || 1 && 3` evaluates like `true || (1 && 3)` while # `true | 1 && 3` evaluates like `(true | 1) && 3` false && true ^ true # => false false & true ^ true # => true # wtf? # `false && true ^ true` evaluates like `false && (true ^ true)` while # `false & true ^ true` evaluates like `(false && true) ^ true`

As if the bitwise Boolean operators didn't have enough going against them, the differences in operator precedence reek too much of a 4-hour debugging session for my taste.

The case against bitwise Boolean operators

Though I started this article with an agenda for finding a use-case appropriate for eager Boolean operators, the search for such a use-case has ultimately led me to the opposite end of the spectrum. Where once I sought to bring light to eager Boolean operators, I now find myself at odds with the whole family of bitwise Boolean operators. We've been through many of the arguments against, but here they are again, in summary:

Rare usage in community code suggests limited understanding and familiarity

The primary benefit of eager evaluation is side effects. Side effects make the code harder to debug, harder to reason about, and harder to test.

Errors encountered during eager evaluation occur before assignment operations Even if errors during eager evaluation are caught, the value of the logical expression is lost. 2

Bitwise Boolean operators have too many differences from their logical counterparts. Return values are converted to Booleans Operator precedence is different Operators are implemented as method calls, which are about 10% slower Can only be invoked on true , false , or nil



With such an abundance of arguments against, arguments in favor had better be significant in length or benefit. Unfortunately, they're not.

Conversion of return values to Booleans slightly faster than double negation.

Eager evaluation? Maybe useful in irb?



I didn't expect to find so many reasons not to use eager or bitwise Boolean operators, but maybe that's part of the reason I had so much trouble finding examples of bitwise Boolean operators at large. With the evidence laid out before you, I hope you will join me in continuing to never use any of the bitwise Boolean operators in Ruby without a comment and a damn good reason.

Thanks for reading!

Have I missed something? Do you know of an example of bitwise and/or eager Boolean operators being used effectively? Have I got it all wrong? Leave me a comment and let me know! I'd love to hear your feedback and/or find a legitimate reason to utilize the family of bitwise Boolean operators.