The problem is that Go already has if and else and else if (which would look
really weird in your proposal)
Changing a word to a symbol does not enhance meaning - it reduces it, and
increases the learning curve.
Like I said, you will probably like Ada - lots of symbols there.
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 7:27 PM, lgod...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> To Kortschak and all others participating in this debate :
>
> Please don't get hung up over my choice of symbol '?' .
> My choice of symbol '?' and ';' is causing people to equate my proposal with
> a proposal to adopt C's ternary operator in Go. This is not what I intended
> to propose.
>
> My proposal regarding ? test {...} : {.. } in is nothing more, nothing less
> than a replacement for
> if (test) { ... } else {... } i.e. 'if' and 'else' are replaced by symbols
> '?' and ';' ..
>
> For example I propose that a statement like ? (x >-1) { y=x; z= x*x } : {
> y=x*x; z= y } compile in Go
> EXACTLY THE SAME way that Go currently compiles the same statement with
> symbol '?' replaced by 'if' and ';' replaced by 'else' . Currently, neither
> C++, C nor Go will compile the above statement
>
> The second part of my proposal called for allowing statements like x =
> (test) ? 1 : 0 to compile in Go.
> C will currently compile this statement but Go will not. But I stress again,
> I intended Go to compile this
> statement exactly the same way it compiles if (test) { x=1} else { x=0 }
> AND that no nested '?' symbols are allowed in a single assignment statement.
>
> In short, I'm proposing a cleaner way to write Go 'if' 'else' statements,
> nothing more, nothing less.
>
> If anyone can offer a concrete example of how my proposed statement will
> cause problems in Go, just replace my chosen symbol '?' with 'if' and symbol
> ';' with 'else' and you'll have a statement that will currently compile in
> Go (and cause the same problems)
>
>
>
> ..
>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-4, kortschak wrote:
>> The difference is that the ternary operator is an expression and the
>> if...else is a statement. If you're only suggesting a syntax change,
>> then the difference becomes one of readability.
>>
>> I'll ask again, how would you preclude nesting without making the
>> language more complex?
>>
>> On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 13:38 -0700, lgo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Rob:
>> >
>> > Am I missing something ??
>> > The proposed syntax
>> > test ? {
>> > } : {
>> > }
>> >
>> > with no-nesting allowed is equivalent to
>> > if test {
>> > //.....
>> > } else {
>> > // ..
>> > }
>> > ..The former is just a cleaner way of writing the latter
>> >
>> > Any complaints regarding 'abuse' associated with the former equally
>> > apply
>> > to the latter
>> >
>> > On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-4, Rob 'Commander'
>> > Pike
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I am pretty sure that the decision not to have ?: in Go was a
>> > > unanimous
>> > > decision by Robert, Ken and myself after almost no discussion. It
>> > > is too
>> > > easy to abuse, as the FAQ states.
>> > >
>> > > -rob
>> > >
>> > >
>
> --
> 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.
