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.
