Hmm I sort of agree with your point, but Im troubled by your fierce but syntactically incorrect example (ternary ops should always have the same number of '?' as ':' )
in reply to Re^4: Idiomatic optimizations
in thread Idiomatic optimizations
I believe that you meant to say
$foo = $a? $b? $c : $d? $e : $f : $g : $h;
syntax error at C:\temp\ternary.pl line 2, near "$g :"
Execution of C:\temp\ternary.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
My personal rule of thumb is that ternary ops should not be nested but may be chained. Thus I would say that your example could be rewritten
$foo = $a ? $b ? $c : $d ? $e : $f : $g;
And its a little less troublesome. Even then I personally would add some whitespace so it would look like
$foo = !$a ? $g : $b ? $c : $d ? $e : $f;
This and a bit of paretheses would also help your nested example
$foo = !$a ? $g
: $b ? $c
: $d ? $e
I find that formatting ternaries like this makes them only marginally more difficult to read than if statements, but I still tend to avoid nested ternaries.
$foo = $a ? ($b ? $c
: ($d ? $e
Yves / DeMerphq
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.