Re: Ternary operator patch
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Ternary operator patch
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: 2010年9月10日 11:42:28 +0200
Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>> [I admit, an if-else operator is something I've wanted quite a few
>>> times in the past, and given the extremely small implementation cost,
>>> seems like it's almost a no-brainer...]
>>
>> A child has an extremely small implementation cost as well. You have to
>> keep the followup costs in mind.
>
> Hmm, given that it arguably could make much code _clearer_, the followup
> costs may actually be less than zero... :)
>
> [Note I'm talking about a simple "if EXPR then EXPR else EXPR", not
> something fancy that allows embedded blocks or whatever.]
Do you really think you can keep children from growing up?
--
David Kastrup