These days I read a very interesting post about the precedence of [OR] over the implicit [AND]. I really liked the original question as well as highly appreciated answer.
I just recently stumbled upon further problems concerning this topic.
The problems start as soon as you try to express the following:
RewriteCond A
RewriteCond B
RewriteCond C
RewriteRule ...
with A OR (B AND C). Where ever you place the [OR], it won't work:
#resolves to (A OR B) AND C
RewriteCond A [OR]
RewriteCond B
RewriteCond C
RewriteRule ...
#resolves to A AND (B OR C)
RewriteCond A
RewriteCond B [OR]
RewriteCond C
RewriteRule ...
#makes no sense at all with no further cond after c
RewriteCond A
RewriteCond B
RewriteCond C [OR]
RewriteRule ...
It doesn't get better with more RewriteCon, since you'll always need a 'partner' to pair the [OR] with :( My finding was that
You can only express RewriteCond-sets that come from the CNF (conjunctive normal form).
Which, imho, is pretty huge and caused by the lack of an explicit [AND] as well as no possiblity to bracket two Cond together.
PLEEEEASE correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope that I just missed something! Not that you can always code more than one rule to satisfy your needs, but this has really been bugging me, since I had a real user-case where that was needed.
TL;DR
The second you try to express
(block of 'n' ANDs) OR X
# with n > 0
# and X being a random logical expression (or in rewrite-terms: Rewrite-Cond set)
you just can't with current set of logical operators ([OR],!)
