Actually I donīt like much the ternary operator, except when it's shorter and readable, and maybe a few C-like uses...
and I was really surprised by PBP on this; I had thought ?: would be simply rejected, and comes that incredible table layout, really amazing one of the gems of the book
still only half-way convinced ;) I donīt know why...a gut feeling mainly... funny we thought more or less the same way
hth --stephanIn reply to Re^2: ?: = Obfuscation?
by sgt
in thread ?: = Obfuscation?
by Melly
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |