On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 07:26:37AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > Thomas Sandlass wrote: > > >I'm still contemplating how to get rid of the :: in the > >ternary > > > >Comments? > I believe that the single most important feature of the ternary operator is > that it is ternary. That is, unlike an if-else sequence, it's impossible to > leave out the "else" in a ternary operation. Splitting the ternary destroys > that vital characteristic, which would be a very bad outcome.
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. Pm
