From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-06-02T06:47:44+09:00
Subject: Re: ternary operator confusion

On 6/1/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "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?

I use it in PDF::Writer because it makes certain parts feel more
like a DSL (domain specific language) than a program.

When I release this (later this week, I *hope*), it'll be visible in
the quickref code.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca