I’m pretty sure you’re joking... but I think most are referring to simple
usages, like this (from my own code). Clearly, there are others was of
designing it to avoid the usage, but sometimes what is simple really is
simpler.
var datalen int32
if value == nil {
datalen = removedKeyken
} else {
datalen = len(value)
}
> On Apr 24, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Marcus Low <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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> 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.
--
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.
