Wow that was some bad typing + bad auto correct... > On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Your original proposal did not have the colon and also implied the {} were > mandatory. And what stops the sane syntax from. Ring nested ? > >> On Apr 24, 2019, at 6:28 PM, lgod...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Just to clarify : My original proposal was to include as part of Go the >> syntax >> >> (test) ? { >> { //..code block for test=true >> } : { >> //..code block for test=false >> } >> >> I am NOT in favor of allowing nested ternary operations >> >> In addition, I also propose allowing un-nested '?' as an alternative >> assignment statement i.e. var = (temp >80) ? "red": "blue" >> >> Thus, any further discussion of this topic should not involve issues related >> to nested ternary operations >> >>> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 9:05:31 PM UTC-4, lgo...@gmail.com wrote: >>> It sure would be nice if Go syntax allowed programmers to replace >>> >>> if ( test) { >>> ...do sonething >>> } else { >>> ..do something else >>> } >>> >>> with >>> >>> ? (test) { >>> //...do something >>> } >>> { >>> //..do something else >>> } >>> >>> The ? operator can be anything the Go language team considers appropriate >> >> -- >> 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.