Re^2: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help

[Tanalis]

in reply to Re: Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help
in thread Ternary operators: a hinderance, not a help

I .. wouldn't have written the if that way, either, though .. :)

I've changed the example in the OP to make it clearer - thanks :)

[Joost]

I .. wouldn't have written the if that way, either, though .. :)

Me neither, it's just a pedantic attempt at getting as close to the behaviour of ?: as I could think of. :-)

[Fletch]

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

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

[Joost]

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

[Anonymous Monk]

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

more or less equivalent to Perls:

($a ? $b : $c) = ($d ? $e : $f);