Here are some points to discuss:
1) The ternary op currently uses the same logic as rpmExprBool to evaluate if
the condition is true or not. But the other logical operators (!, &&, ||) only
work with integers. We should make this consistent, either by changing ternary
to only accept integers or by changing the other ops to also accept strings.
2) There probably should be a test that makes sure the true and false part of a
ternary op have the same type. I.e. the `%test ? 2 : "foo"` should not be
allowed.
3) Does it make sense to have variants with missing parts?
```
%foo ? %bar Use alternate value
Return %bar if %foo is true, otherwise 0 or ""
(probably not so interesting, it's easy to write `: 0` or
`: ""`)
%foo ?: %bar Use default value
Return %foo if %foo is true, otherwise %bar
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/852_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
