On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 18:51:51 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 17:40:20 UTC, EntangledQuanta
wrote:
I assume someone is going to tell me that the compiler treats
it as
writeln((x + (_win[0] == '@')) ? w/2 : 0);
Yeah, that is really logical!
Yeah, I've been bitten by that in languages like C#. I wish D
didn't follow in C#'s footsteps and chosen a different syntax:
`()? :`
That way if there aren't any parentheses the compiler could
throw out an error until you specify what the operating is
working with. It would make for a little overhead but these
complex ternary expressions can be confusing.
Yes, it's not that they are confusing but illogical.
a + b ? c : d
in a complex expression can be hard to interpret if a and b are
complex. The whole point of parenthesis is to disambiguate and
group things. To not use them is pretty ignorant.
1 + 2 ? 3 : 4
That is ambiguous. is it (1 + 2) ? 3 : 4 or 1 + (2 ? 3 : 4)?
Well,
()?: is not ambiguous!
The D community preaches all this safety shit but when it comes
down to it they don't seem to really care(look at the other
responses like like "Hey, C does it" or "Hey, look up the
operator precedence"... as if those responses are meaningful).
I'm just glad there is at least one sane person that decided to
chime in... was quite surprised actually. I find it quite
pathetic when someone tries to justify a wrong by pointing to
other wrongs. It takes away all credibility that they have.
