Re^4: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help

As an aside: in Ruby where if is an expression not a statement you can write something very close without all the extraneous squiggles.

number = if logical_test 
           value
         else
           0
         end
[download]

Not to mention case is also an expression and can be used similarly.

zerg = case foo
       when "bar"
         Hydralisk.new
       when "baz"
         more_creep()
       else
         raise "Too few Starcraft references"
       end
[download]

--
We're looking for people in ATL

Comment on Re^4: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help by Anonymous Monk on Aug 10, 2005 at 10:11 UTC
That isn't exactly new. In ALGOL 68 (and perhaps earlier versions as well), you could do: `IF a THEN b ELSE c FI := IF d THEN e ELSE f FI` [download] more or less equivalent to Perls: `($a ? $b : $c) = ($d ? $e : $f);` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help by Joost (Canon) on Aug 09, 2005 at 22:03 UTC
Yes. Isn't Ruby nice ;-) Most of your example niceness is due to syntax, though... I've been using ruby for a couple of months now, and at first I didn't like the begin ... end type statements, but you get used to them pretty quicky, and now I actually prefer them over { ... } in ruby. Seriously, I'm using ruby for a project now, and it is pretty damn good. Some of the design decisions in perl 6 are good too, but overall, I actually like the current ruby design better than perl 6. I mean, hyper operators are cool and all, but where is my easy operator overloading? please someone tell me how to do overloading in perl 6 "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]