Re: Ternary operator patch

[Eric Man <usyd.meric@...>]

How about just change the existing if-then-else-end to become a  
ternary operator?

local successful = if result==1 then void_func1(); bool_func2() eiseif  
result==2 then do_this(); false; else bool_func3() end

It returns the last thing in the block, just like lisp's "cond".

Big change, but IMO more elegant.

Eric


On 11/09/2010, at 8:04 PM, Duncan Cross wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Alexander Gladysh  
> <agladysh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do we *really* need a ternary operator in Lua?
>
> Well, there are already plenty of things already in the language that
> we don't *really* need:
> - a:b()
> - repeat <x> until y
> - Multiple return values
> - The operators <, <= and ~=
>
> ...and so on. If we didn't have these we could always find ways to
> work around them. But the workarounds would have pitfalls, just as "a
> and b or c" does, and would make Lua code that bit less pleasant to
> write. As simple and slender as Lua is, it is not aggressively so, to
> the point that absolutely nothing nonessential is allowed in.
>
> -Duncan