Thank you Chris for all the feedback. <div><br></div><div>Should there be a spot on the website or github with frequent proposed changes that are not feasible or that not better solution has been found (such as the ?: operator )?</div><div><br></div><div>I am thinking this would cut down on people asking to turn operators into keywords (or similar ) but still encourage better solutions to be proposed. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br>On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:36 PM, Charles Constant <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'charles@charlesism.com')">charles@charlesism.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> One more thought. This syntax would also placate ternary haters. I think the traditional complaint about ternary expressions is that people can't remember the order of the true and false values. This would not be an issue with:<br>
><br>
> let i = boo ? ( true: 123, false: 456 )<br>
<br>
I would characterize this as “different” than ?:, but not better. Given that it isn’t “better”, I’d argue that following C (and tons of other languages) would make sense here.<br>
<br>
-Chris<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'swift-evolution@swift.org')">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>