Why is this version of logical AND in C not showing short-circuit behavior?

Question

Yes, this is a homework question, but I've done my research and a fair amount of deep thought on the topic and can't figure this out. The question states that this piece of code does NOT exhibit short-circuit behavior and asks why. But it looks to me like it does exhibit short-circuit behavior, so can someone explain why it doesn't?

In C:

int sc_and(int a, int b) {     return a ? b : 0; } 

It looks to me that in the case that a is false, the program will not try to evaluate b at all, but I must be wrong. Why does the program even touch b in this case, when it doesn't have to?

Answer 1

This is a trick question. b is an input argument to the sc_and method, and so will always be evaluated. In other-words sc_and(a(), b()) will call a() and call b() (order not guaranteed), then call sc_and with the results of a(), b() which passes to a?b:0. It has nothing to do with the ternary operator itself, which would absolutely short-circuit.

UPDATE

With regards to why I called this a 'trick question': It's because of the lack of well-defined context for where to consider 'short circuiting' (at least as reproduced by the OP). Many persons, when given just a function definition, assume that the context of the question is asking about the body of the function; they often do not consider the function as an expression in and of itself. This is the 'trick' of the question; To remind you that in programming in general, but especially in languages like C-likes that often have many exceptions to rules, you can't do that. Example, if the question was asked as such:

Consider the following code. Will sc_and exibit short-circuit behavior when called from main:

int sc_and(int a, int b){     return a?b:0; }  int a(){     cout<<"called a!"<<endl;     return 0; }  int b(){     cout<<"called b!"<<endl;     return 1; }  int main(char* argc, char** argv){     int x = sc_and(a(), b());     return 0; } 

It would be immediately clear that you're supposed to be thinking of sc_and as an operator in and of itself in your own domain-specific language, and evaluating if the call to sc_and exhibits short-circuit behavior like a regular && would. I would not consider that to be a trick question at all, because it's clear you're not supposed to focus on the ternary operator, and are instead supposed to focus on C/C++'s function-call mechanics (and, I would guess, lead nicely into a follow-up question to write an sc_and that does short-circuit, which would involve using a #define rather than a function).

Whether or not you call what the ternary operator itself does short-circuiting (or something else, like 'conditional evaluation') depends on your definition of short-circuiting, and you can read the various comments for thoughts on that. By mine it does, but it's not terribly relevant to the actual question or why I called it a 'trick'.