That's not a proper Boolean expression.
A better word than proper might have been "Formal". I was merely indicating that it was not a Boolean expression fit for Boolean algebra but that it must be acceptable syntax for whatever command and language was being used. (For Example, swapping the first . and , in your sentence would certainly have changed its syntax to an insult )It is valid C. stupid, confusing, error prone but valid. The thing about C is that the expression in the if statement evaluates to a value. It can have any type. As long as it evaluates to non-zero the "then" clause of the if statement is taken. That's why you will see things like
Assuming the variable types were Binary, would it be correct to state the function in English like this?
IF A doesn't equal B OR (any of those other conditions) then....
(the THEN or Else part of the command was never shown) If you contract your logic functions you should also be able to shorten the equivalent sentence
X=(NOT A AND B) OR (C AND D) OR (E AND F) OR (whatever expression says G>H using only logic gates)
The Truth table for G>H is
G H X
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 1
1 1 1
But I wasn't quickly able to convert that into gates equivalent or that would be the last term. Anyway that's a lot closer to a Boolean expression than the original command.
If the variable type was integer or float or some other real number type then the interpretation in Boolean wouldn't be very valid. the resulting G>H would be a comparator rather than some gates described by the truth table.
While not very good coding style today when working in a group or making code that will be maintained, such contractions were common in the early DOS days when making smaller EXE and source files was required by small memories. Not knowing the context or vintage of the code example only makes such an observation conjecture though. If tested good and adequately commented so as to explain its intent, then It would be acceptable even today. An accompanying comment would have been essential.