On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:53 AM, <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

> which also contains a suggested patch

Did you check that the proposed patch actually works?

I see no difference between:

a || b
and
a || (a && b) which is (a || a) && (a || b)

a || (a && b) is actually just a fancier way to write a.

if a is true, the result is true,

if a is false, the result will be a && b, however, as a is already false, it's false.

in go9p.patch, the suggested change is actually from a || b to a || (b && a),

this is slightly different. But it's still just a fancier way to write a.