From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-06-02T06:20:53+09:00
Subject: Re: ternary operator confusion

--- "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@vernix.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:40:23AM +0900, Phrogz wrote:
> > true ? a.push(1) : a.push(2)
> 
> i suspect this could have been just a contrived example but
> you could also
> do:
> 
> a.push true ? 1 : 2

I wish Ruby didn't make the () optional when passing args
(probably from Perl which wanted to be like shells/tcl/lisp
where command/function and arguments are space separated).

When you don't put the () in, the precendence can get confusing
and you arbitrarily prevent the first arg to start with a "("
(otherwise it will treat that "(" as what starts the argument
list).

Why do people feel the need to drop the ()?  I didn't like it
in Perl and I don't like it in Ruby.  Do people just want
something  that is kind of like shell syntax?





		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html