Patrick suggested: > At OSCON I was also thinking that it'd be really nice to get rid of > the :: in the ternary and it occurred to me that perhaps we could use > something like '?:' as the 'else' token instead: > > (cond) ?? (if_true) ?: (if_false) > > However, I'll freely admit that I hadn't investigated much further > to see if this might cause other syntax ambiguities.
I think the main problem there would be the *visual* similarity between the two. Damian
