On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
<mich...@freepascal.org> wrote:
b) a ? b : c
From the people that responded in the core discussion, the majority was for
the a ? b : c syntax, or not adding at all (not all replied).
You mean like literally using "?" and ":" ?
Yes. As used in C-like languages.
If someone feels like submitting a patch that implements a ? b : c, it may
well be taken under advisement. I heard no-one speaking out clearly against
the actual functionality (well, maybe one) or the a ? b : c form.
aha, I see, Sven's message wasn't clear about it, it sounded like core
is completely against any implementation.
Quoting Sven:
"There will be *no* replacement in the foreseeable future."
So
"Foreseeable future" <> "eternity" ? "may be implemented" : "will never be
implemented"
While actually simply no-one is working on the desired solution, which
are 2 very different things.
Provided you know what the 'desired solution' is, yes.
"if then" is a statement. This is a clear and unambiguous rule.
The idea was "inline if" not "if"
I don't think you are right there, but it doesn't make a difference either way.
Whether or not 'if' is preceded by 'inline' is irrelevant.
'if then else' says 'statement', not 'expression'.
'?' clearly says 'operator' hence, 'expression'.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
