I personally do not find ternary operators to be readable in any form.
For those who are truly desperate for that cosmetic one-line kick, though,
here's an example you can use (which looks just about as unreadable as any
ternary operator out there):
// ternary returns 12345 if x is positive (x > 0).
// It returns -1 otherwise.
func ternary(x int) int {
return map[bool]int{true:12345,false:-1}[x>0]
}
On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 12:20:35 AM UTC+8, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> Yes, but the FAQ has similar concerns about readability and
> maintainability as reasons for not having generics, but adds the language
> “may change”... not sure that is consistent with the views on the tenant
> operator.
>
> > On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >
> > The lack of the ?: operator in Go is a FAQ:
> > https://golang.org/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form .
> >
> > Ian
>
>
--
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.
