[Ping]
> Yeah, my suggestion was, e.g.
>
> def abs(x):
> return x > 0 then x else -x
Yup, I *did* mentally insert an "if" for you. You're welcome <wink>.
> Might as well summarize the other suggestions so far:
>
> return x > 0 ? x else -x
Toss it -- *nobody* wants it (if that's one I suggested, I get to retract
it).
> return x > 0 ? x : -x
Has anyone other than Eric come out explicitly in favor of this spelling (I
know others have come out in favor of a ternary operator, but don't recall
much love for this syntax)?
> return if x > 0: x else -x
I get to retract that too (heck, I said I hated that one in the same
sentence I tossed it out ...).
> Have i missed any?
Yes, the utterly conventional and perfectly clear one:
return (if x > 0 then x else -x)
If we don't buy into Guido's keyword argument, it's feasible.
There was also some Perlish atrocity (not that I'm judging ...) like
return x if x > 0 else -x
> Assuming that "then" will never be made a keyword, i would probably
> go with "x > 0 ? x else -x". "if" seems to shout "statement" too
> loudly at me, and colons seem too loaded.
Too late: it was mine & I retracted it <wink>. "if" doesn't really *shout*
stmt unless it's at the start of a line. Wrap it in parens too and it's
barely a whisper.
> Another issue with the last suggestion: how do you explain putting a
> colon after the condition but not after the "else"?
The truth: "Because Guido is afraid of new keywords" <wink>.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4