On Wednesday, 15 August 2018 13:23:36 UTC+2, Mark Volkmann wrote: > > [...] > The first is ternaries. What if only simple, non-nested ternaries were > supported? For example, color := temperature > 100 ? “red” : “blue”. >
It is easy to write "non-nested" but it is hard to define. Probably a?(b?c:d):e is "nested" but: Is f(a?b:c) a nesting of ?: Is g(a?b:c, d?:e:f) nested? It gets ugly very fast. And: Your example looks innocent, but requirement never stay innocent. In 6 month you will have to encode 3 temperature ranges in red, green and blue and you will have to replace the ?: with if/else if/else or a switch anyway. So why not start out directly with an if? > [...] > I personally doubt that adoption per se is a goal. And if than Go's adoption is perhaps driven by actual absence of this syntactical sugar. Especially complicated syntactical sugar like ternary ?: is fine but not nested! V. -- 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.
