Hmm I sort of agree with your point, but Im troubled by your fierce but syntactically incorrect example (ternary ops should always have the same number of '?' as ':' )

$a=1;$b=2;$c=3;$d=4;$f=5;$g=6;$h=7;
$foo = $a? $b? $c : $d? $e : $f : $g : $h;
print $foo;
__END__
syntax error at C:\temp\ternary.pl line 2, near "$g :"
Execution of C:\temp\ternary.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
[download]

I believe that you meant to say

$foo = $a ? $b ? $c : $d ? $e : $f : $g;
[download]

My personal rule of thumb is that ternary ops should not be nested but may be chained. Thus I would say that your example could be rewritten

$foo = !$a ? $g : $b ? $c : $d ? $e : $f;
[download]

And its a little less troublesome. Even then I personally would add some whitespace so it would look like

$foo = !$a ? $g
           : $b ? $c
                : $d ? $e
                     : $f;
[download]

This and a bit of paretheses would also help your nested example

$foo = $a ? ($b ? $c 
                : ($d ? $e 
                      : $f)) 
          : $g;
[download]

I find that formatting ternaries like this makes them only marginally more difficult to read than if statements, but I still tend to avoid nested ternaries.

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.