Re^2: Ternary operator (there's no Trinary operator )

Lol, good job on uncovering a reliable and trusted source that manages to further the ambiguity and confusion. I should have guessed the Camel would discredit my pontification, though I'm not sure if it discredits or instead, illustrates my point. Let's get it all out on the table and arm wrestle for the rights to pick which term is going to survive. There can be only one. (Highlander)

Dave

Comment on Re^2: Ternary operator (there's no Trinary operator )

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Ternary operator (there's no Trinary operator ) by GrandFather (Saint) on Jul 19, 2006 at 07:41 UTC
I see trinary somewhat as a shibboleth among Perl cognoscenti in much the same way that Perl itself is, or indeed as stumbit is among Perl Monks. It is these small things that distinguish us from users of other run of the mill boring languages and that enrich our use and immersion in our chosen language, that provides part of the solution and will prevent Perl from dying out. DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel	[reply]
Re^3: Ternary operator (there's no Trinary operator ) by graq (Curate) on Jul 19, 2006 at 14:24 UTC
There can be only one I disagree - there can only be three. The third will encompass all, and be the ultimate truth. -=( Graq )=-	[reply]
Re^3: Ternary operator (there's no Trinary operator ) by ysth (Canon) on Jul 19, 2006 at 20:24 UTC
This is not just a perl issue, though. ?: is most often called the ternary operator in several programming languages. I don't even see the Camel as cited as disagreeing; it just says that the operator whose name is "the ternary operator" is a member (and the only one, in perl) of the class of trinary operators.	[reply]