Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 06:13:21PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> > + color = len ? INPUT : (failure || failonclear ? FAILED
> > : INIT);
>
> I would split this condition out. Looks good for the rest.
Heyho,
I think it is pretty readable for a nested ?: operator:
- Not used in a functioncall, just a simple assignment.
- The nested one is in the false part.
- No inversions or calculations.
Splitting it into something like the following doesn't seem easier to grasp:
color = INPUT;
if (!len)
color = failure || failonclear ? FAILED : INIT;
or
color = failure || failonclear ? FAILED : INIT;
if (len)
color = INPUT;
If there are no other strong arguments against it, I would like to keep it as
proposed.
--Markus
