Same top-level point, though: [for evaluating `f() and g()`]:
result = f() if bool(result): result = g()
Ah, I think I see your point now. In the _context_ of `if f() and g()`, the dumbest possible code generation would do the above, and then go on to do
if bool(result): ....
If in fact `f()` returned a false-like value, an optimizer could note that `bool(result)` had already been evaluated and skip the redundant evaluation. I think that's fine either way: what the language guarantees is that `f()` will be evaluated exactly once, and `g()` no more than once, and that's all so regardless.