If instead of writing: temperature > 80 ? red : green
you choose to follow Marcus and write instead:
map[bool]string{true:"red",false:"green"}[temperature>80]
OR call
func ternary(x int) int {
return map[bool]int{true:12345,false:-1}[x>0]
}
Go right ahead ! ..as they say, "different strokes for different folks"
But don't deny others the ability to choose the first alternative
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:34:09 PM UTC-4, Marcus Low wrote:
>
> color := map[bool]string{true:"red",false:"green"}[temperature>80]
> Here you go.
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 10:08:53 PM UTC+8, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>>
>> Are there really developers that find this unreadable?
>>
>> color := temperature > 80 ? “red” : “green”
>>
>> I know what you are going to say. People will nest them. But even nested
>> usage can be readable when formatted nicely with one condition per line.
>> Another alternative is to allow only unnested ternaries.
>>
>> R. Mark Volkmann
>> Object Computing, Inc.
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:48 PM L Godioleskky <lgo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The lack of a Go ternary operator is at odds with Go's major theme of
>> clean and easy to read syntax. Those who choose not to use the ternary
>> operator can always resort back to Go's current 'if -else' or 'case'
>> syntax. So Go syntax suffers no negative impact by adding the ternary op to
>> its syntax list. Those opposed to the ternary op should not be allowed to
>> deny it use other Go programmers, that consider it useful.
>> >
>> > That's backwards. Those who has to read the code can no more chose not
>> > to decrypt the unreadable 4-level nested ternary operations instead of
>> > 5 if statements.
>> >
>> > And to follow on your "logic". If you add to Go even just 10% of what
>> > people consider useful, it will become a new C++, only much worse. And
>> > again by your very logic. Why we, that haven't chosen to code in C++
>> > in the first place, would be denied by others to use Go, when those
>> > others have C++ already at hand?
>> >
>> > Let everyone use the language he/she likes. Why ruin it for others
>> > instead of that by forcing Go to become the same as his/her other
>> > favorite language?
>>
>
--
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.
