I agree, and I think the ternary represents the logic much cleaner than if/else
in this case. This would be especially true if you could do:
final datalen := value==nil ? removedKeyken : len(value)
> On Apr 24, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm at a loss as to how that could be considered more readable that a single
> ternary.
> You've successfully changed five lines to four lines, but that's still a long
> way from one line.
>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:15 PM Marcus Low <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah of course I was joking... the solution I provided does work for the "I
>> need a one-liner" mentality, though.
>>
>> I believe this following solution fits your use case, and is simpler to read
>> too:
>>
>> datalen := removedKeyken // removedKeyken must have been int32 in your
>> example.
>> if value != nil {
>> datalen = len(value)
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:05 AM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> I’m pretty sure you’re joking... but I think most are referring to simple
>>> usages, like this (from my own code). Clearly, there are others was of
>>> designing it to avoid the usage, but sometimes what is simple really is
>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> var datalen int32
>>> if value == nil {
>>> datalen = removedKeyken
>>> } else {
>>> datalen = len(value)
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 24, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Marcus Low <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I personally do not find ternary operators to be readable in any form.
>>>> For those who are truly desperate for that cosmetic one-line kick, though,
>>>> here's an example you can use (which looks just about as unreadable as any
>>>> ternary operator out there):
>>>>
>>>> // ternary returns 12345 if x is positive (x > 0).
>>>> // It returns -1 otherwise.
>>>> func ternary(x int) int {
>>>> return map[bool]int{true:12345,false:-1}[x>0]
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 12:20:35 AM UTC+8, Robert Engels wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but the FAQ has similar concerns about readability and
>>>>> maintainability as reasons for not having generics, but adds the language
>>>>> “may change”... not sure that is consistent with the views on the tenant
>>>>> operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The lack of the ?: operator in Go is a FAQ:
>>>>> > https://golang.org/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form .
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>> "golang-nuts" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
