[swift-evolution] ternary operator ?: suggestion
charles at charlesism.com
Sat Jan 9 18:09:55 CST 2016
More fiddling... any takers for "on"?
Yes, this is partly a last ditch attempt trying to revive my earlier
proposal :) It still irks me that we'd have a switch using the colon two
different ways. Also my last suggestion had the order reversed ( i.e.: "val
=test" but then "==test val" in the cases ) which is irritating.
* let str = boo ? *
*"yes" **on true **: *
*"no" **on **false*
* let num = color ? *
*100 **on .Red **: *
*200 **on .Green* *: *
*300 **on .Blue * *: *
*-1 **on default *
The more verbose forms will be easier to learn, I suppose, but it's also
nice, when you have a long list of things like this, to keep things as
json-y as possible. Granted if we use the short version, there's developers
who will flame anyone listening for doubling down on the evil ternary.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Paul Ossenbruggen <possen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just a few hopefully quick questions:
> > Do you have any thoughts on supporting two forms? Like the compact form
> where case and default are not present, and the more formal switch like
> Adding two forms seems very unlikely to be accepted - even adding one form
> is unclear :-)
> > Do you have any specific reasons to not support “where”? Is it just to
> keep it simple and when we need more complexity use the statement form?
> I don’t have a strong objection to where, other than trying to keep things
> simple. It is reasonable to argue that removing “where” makes things more
> complex by making the expression *different* from the statement though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution