[swift-evolution] ternary operator ?: suggestion

[Charles Constant]

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
> form?
>
> 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.
>
> -Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160109/b5bb50f2/attachment.html>