Related
Often code is not as readable as it could be because parameters are always at the end of the function name. Ex.: addDaysToDate(5, myDate).
I thought about a more readable syntax like this:
function add(days)DaysTo(date) {
// Some implementation
}
var myDate = new Date()
add(5)DaysTo(myDate)
And you could go really crazy:
addA(5)('dollar')CouponTo(order)If(user)IsLoggedIn
So here is my question: Are there any languages that incorporate this concept?
Assuming a generous interpretation of the phrase "is there", then: Algol 60 could look like your example. Specifically, it allowed a form of comment in procedure parameters.
add(5) Days To: (myDate);
The specific rule in the grammar that permits this is:
<parameter delimiter> ::= , | ) <letter string> : (
which is to say, the parameters in a procedure statement can be separated by a comma (as is common) or by an arbitrary sequence of letters delimited by ) and :(.
Spaces are everywhere ignored, so they're ok here too.
The letter-string is treated as a comment, so as for all comments, it has no bearing on what the code actually does. This is just as valid as the previous example:
add(5) Bananas To: (myDate);
It seems curious to me now, nearly 45 years after I last used this, that the comment part can only contain letters, no digits.
<letter string> ::= <letter> | <letter string> <letter>
Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 60
Have a look at Pogoscript https://github.com/featurist/pogoscript
There are no keywords in PogoScript. All control structures use the same syntax rules as regular functions and methods, so it's very easy to write your own control structures
Arguments and parameters can be placed anywhere in the name of a function or method call. The careful placement of an argument or a parameter can give it a lot of meaning.
sing (n) bottlesOfBeerOnTheWall =
if (n > 0)
console.log ((n) bottlesOfBeerOnTheWall)
sing (n - 1) bottlesOfBeerOnTheWall
(n) bottlesOfBeerOnTheWall =
"#((n) bottles) of beer on the wall, #((n) bottles) of beer.\n" +
"Take one down, pass it around, #((n - 1) bottles) of beer on the wall."
(n) bottles =
if (n == 0)
"no bottles"
else if (n == 1)
"1 bottle"
else
"#(n) bottles"
sing 99 bottlesOfBeerOnTheWall
I want to write a simple parser for a nested block syntax, just hierarchical plain-text. For example:
Some regular text.
This is outputted as-is, foo{but THIS
is inside a foo block}.
bar{
Blocks can be multi-line
and baz{nested}
}
What's the simplest way to do this? I've already written 2 working implementations, but they are overly complex. I tried full-text regex matching, and streaming char-by-char analysis.
I have to teach the workings of it to people, so simplicity is paramount. I don't want to introduce a dependency on Lex/Yacc Flex/Bison (or PEGjs/Jison, actually, this is javascript).
The good choices probably boil down as follows:
Given your constaints, it's going to be recursive-descent. That's a fine way to go even without constraints.
you can either parse char-by-char (traditional) or write a lexical layer that uses the local string library to scan for { and }. Either way, you might want to return three terminal symbols plus EOF: BLOCK_OF_TEXT, LEFT_BRACE, and RIGHT_BRACE.
char c;
boolean ParseNestedBlocks(InputStream i)
{ if ParseStreamContent(i)
then { if c=="}" then return false
else return true
}
else return false;
boolean ParseSteamContent(InputStream i)
{ loop:
c = GetCharacter(i);
if c =="}" then return true;
if c== EOF then return true;
if c=="{"
{ if ParseStreamContent(i)
{ if c!="}" return false; }
else return false;
}
goto loop
}
Recently, I've been using parser combinators for some projects in pure Javascript. I pulled out the code into a separate project; you can find it here. This approach is similar to the recursive descent parsers that #DigitalRoss suggested, but with a more clear split between code that's specific to your parser and general parser-bookkeeping code.
A parser for your needs (if I understood your requirements correctly) would look something like this:
var open = literal("{"), // matches only '{'
close = literal("}"), // matches only '}'
normalChar = not1(alt(open, close)); // matches any char but '{' and '}'
var form = new Parser(function() {}); // forward declaration for mutual recursion
var block = node('block',
['open', open ],
['body', many0(form)],
['close', close ]);
form.parse = alt(normalChar, block).parse; // set 'form' to its actual value
var parser = many0(form);
and you'd use it like this:
// assuming 'parser' is the parser
var parseResult = parser.parse("abc{def{ghi{}oop}javascript}is great");
The parse result is a syntax tree.
In addition to backtracking, the library also helps you produce nice error messages and threads user state between parser calls. The latter two I've found very useful for generating brace error messages, reporting both the problem and the location of the offending brace tokens when: 1) there's an open brace but no close; 2) there's mismatched brace types -- i.e. (...] or {...); 3) a close brace without a matching open.
In some dynamic languages I have seen this kind of syntax:
myValue = if (this.IsValidObject)
{
UpdateGraph();
UpdateCount();
this.Name;
}
else
{
Debug.Log (Exceptions.UninitializedObject);
3;
}
Basically being able to return the last statement in a branch as the return value for a variable, not necessarily only for method returns, but they could be achieved as well.
What's the name of this feature?
Can this also be achieved in staticly typed languages such as C#? I know C# has ternary operator, but I mean using if statements, switch statements as shown above.
It is called "conditional-branches-are-expressions" or "death to the statement/expression divide".
See Conditional If Expressions:
Many languages support if expressions, which are similar to if statements, but return a value as a result. Thus, they are true expressions (which evaluate to a value), not statements (which just perform an action).
That is, if (expr) { ... } is an expression (could possible be an expression or a statement depending upon context) in the language grammar just as ?: is an expression in languages like C, C# or Java.
This form is common in functional programming languages (which eschew side-effects) -- however, it is not "functional programming" per se and exists in other language that accept/allow a "functional like syntax" while still utilizing heavy side-effects and other paradigms (e.g. Ruby).
Some languages like Perl allow this behavior to be simulated. That is, $x = eval { if (true) { "hello world!" } else { "goodbye" } }; print $x will display "hello world!" because the eval expression evaluates to the last value evaluated inside even though the if grammar production itself is not an expression. ($x = if ... is a syntax error in Perl).
Happy coding.
To answer your other question:
Can this also be achieved in staticly typed languages such as C#?
Is it a thing the language supports? No. Can it be achieved? Kind of.
C# --like C++, Java, and all that ilk-- has expressions and statements. Statements, like if-then and switch-case, don't return values and there fore can't be used as expressions. Also, as a slight aside, your example assigns myValue to either a string or an integer, which C# can't do because it is strongly typed. You'd either have to use object myValue and then accept the casting and boxing costs, use var myValue (which is still static typed, just inferred), or some other bizarre cleverness.
Anyway, so if if-then is a statement, how do you do that in C#? You'd have to build a method to accomplish the goal of if-then-else. You could use a static method as an extension to bools, to model the Smalltalk way of doing it:
public static T IfTrue(this bool value, Action doThen, Action doElse )
{
if(value)
return doThen();
else
return doElse();
}
To use this, you'd do something like
var myVal = (6 < 7).IfTrue(() => return "Less than", () => return "Greater than");
Disclaimer: I tested none of that, so it may not quite work due to typos, but I think the principle is correct.
The new IfTrue() function checks the boolean it is attached to and executes one of two delegates passed into it. They must have the same return type, and neither accepts arguments (use closures, so it won't matter).
Now, should you do that? No, almost certainly not. Its not the proper C# way of doing things so it's confusing, and its much less efficient than using an if-then. You're trading off something like 1 IL instruction for a complex mess of classes and method calls that .NET will build behind the scenes to support that.
It is a ternary conditional.
In C you can use, for example:
printf("Debug? %s\n", debug?"yes":"no");
Edited:
A compound statement list can be evaluated as a expression in C. The last statement should be a expression and the whole compound statement surrounded by braces.
For example:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int a=0, b=1;
a=({
printf("testing compound statement\n");
if(b==a)
printf("equals\n");
b+1;
});
printf("a=%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
So the name of the characteristic you are doing is assigning to a (local) variable a compound statement. Now I think this helps you a little bit more. For more, please visit this source:
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemnet/use/info/gcc/gcc_8.html
Take care,
Beco.
PS. This example makes more sense in the context of your question:
a=({
int c;
if(b==a)
c=b+1;
else
c=a-1;
c;
});
In addition to returning the value of the last expression in a branch, it's likely (depending on the language) that myValue is being assigned to an anonymous function -- or in Smalltalk / Ruby, code blocks:
A block of code (an anonymous function) can be expressed as a literal value (which is an object, since all values are objects.)
In this case, since myValue is actually pointing to a function that gets invoked only when myValue is used, the language probably implements them as closures, which are originally a feature of functional languages.
Because closures are first-class functions with free variables, closures exist in C#. However, the implicit return does not occur; in C# they're simply anonymous delegates! Consider:
Func<Object> myValue = delegate()
{
if (this.IsValidObject)
{
UpdateGraph();
UpdateCount();
return this.Name;
}
else
{
Debug.Log (Exceptions.UninitializedObject);
return 3;
}
};
This can also be done in C# using lambda expressions:
Func<Object> myValue = () =>
{
if (this.IsValidObject) { ... }
else { ... }
};
I realize your question is asking about the implicit return value, but I am trying to illustrate that there is more than just "conditional branches are expressions" going on here.
Can this also be achieved in staticly
typed languages?
Sure, the types of the involved expressions can be statically and strictly checked. There seems to be nothing dependent on dynamic typing in the "if-as-expression" approach.
For example, Haskell--a strict statically typed language with a rich system of types:
$ ghci
Prelude> let x = if True then "a" else "b" in x
"a"
(the example expression could be simpler, I just wanted to reflect the assignment from your question, but the expression to demonstrate the feature could be simlpler:
Prelude> if True then "a" else "b"
"a"
.)
I recently had the necessity of rewriting a javascript function in javascript, dynamically. The ease with which I did it, and how fun it was, astounded me.
Over here I've got some HTML:
<div id="excelExport1234"
onclick="if(somestuff) location.href='http://server/excelExport.aspx?id=56789&something=else'; else alert('not important');"
>Click here to export to excel</div>
And I couldn't change the outputted HTML, but I needed to add an extra parameter to that link. I started thinking about it, and realized I could just do this:
excelExport = $('excelExport1234');
if (needParam)
eval('excelExport.onclick = ' + excelExport.onclick.toString().replace("excelReport.aspx?id", "excelReport.aspx?extraParam=true&id") + ';');
else
eval('excelExport.onclick = ' + excelExport.onclick.toString().replace("extraParam=true&", "") + ';');
And it worked like a champ! excelExport.onclick returns a function object which I convert to a string, and do some string manip on. Since it's now in the form of "function() { ... }", I just go back and assign it to the onclick event of the dom object. It's a little ugly having to use eval, but AFAIK there isn't a javascript function constructor that can take a string of code and turn it into an object nicely.
Anyway, my point isn't that I'm super clever (I'm not), my point is that this is cool. And I know javascript isn't the only language that can do this. I've heard that lisp has had macros for years for this exact purpose. Except to really grok macros you need to really grok lisp, and I don't grok it, I just 'kind of get it'.
So my question is: In what other languages can you (easily) dynamically rewrite functions, and can you show me a simple example? I want to see where else you can do this, and how it's done!
(also, I have no idea what to tag this as, so I took random guesses)
LISP is the ultimate language at this. LISP functions are actual LISP lists, meaning you can manipulate LISP source code as if it were any other data structure.
Here's a very trivial example of how it works:
(define hi
(lambda () (display "Hello World\n")))
;; Displays Hello World
(hi)
(set! hi
(lambda () (display "Hola World\n")))
;; Displays Hola World
(hi)
This, however, is possible in any language where functions are first-class objects. One of the most interesting showcases of the power of this syntax for LISP is in its macro system. I really don't feel I could do the topic justice, so read these links if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_(computer_science)#Lisp_macros
http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/macros.html
I guess it depends on what exactly you define as "easily dynamic rewriting". For example in .Net you have the Func type and lambdas which allows you to define functions as variables or as temporary anonymous functions eg.
int[] numbers = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
Func<int[], int> somefunc;
if (someCondition)
{
somefunc = (is => is.Sum());
} else {
somefunc = (is => is.Count());
}
Console.WriteLine(somefunc(numbers).ToString());
The above is a very contrived example of either counting the items in an array of integers or summing then using dynamically created functions subject to some arbitrary condition.
Note - Please don't point out that these things can be easily accomplished without lambdas (which they obviously can) I was simply trying to write a very simple example to demonstrate the concept in C#
Self-modifying code is also called degenerate code. This is generally considered a bad thing, and it used to be a goal of high-level languages to prevent it from being written easily.
This is from the wikipedia entry:
Self-modifying code is seen by some as a bad practice which makes code harder to read and maintain. There are however ways in which self modification is nevertheless deemed acceptable, such as when sub routine pointers are dynamically altered - even though the effect is almost identical to direct modification.
I think that it is the case in most of dynamic languages. Here is an example in Python
def f(x):
print x
def new_function(x): print "hello", x
f("world")
f = new_function
f("world")
The output is
world
hello world
I think that such technique should be used carefully
Scheme allows you to do that.
(define (salute-english name) (display "Hello ") (display name))
(define (salute-french nom) (display "Salut ") (display nom))
Now you redefine a fonction by assigning the salute variable to the right function, either salute-english or salute-french, like this:
(define salute salute-english)
(define (redefined-the-salute-function language)
(if (eq? language 'french)
(set! salute salute-french)
(set! salute salute-english)))
More generaly functional programming language allows you to do that or as functions are first class value. Functions can be manipulated, passed around, sometimes assigned to variables and so on. The list then include: Lisp, Scheme, Dylan, OCaml and SML. Some languages having first class functions includes Python, Ruby, Smalltalk and i think Perl.
Note that when you have an interactive language where you can interactively type your program, the redefinition of functions/methods must be possible: the REPL has to be able to do that, just in case you happen to retype the definition of an already defined functions.
I used to do this all the time in TCL, it was a breeze and worked wonderfully. I could investigate somethings interface over the network and then create a custom-made interface on the fly to access and control things. For example, you could make a custom SNMP interface from a generic SNMP library.
I haven't used it, but C# has some built-in support for generating it's own byte-code, which is fairly impressive.
I've done this sort of thing in C as well, but there it is non-portable and almost never worth the hassle. It is a technique used sometimes for "self-optimizing" code to generate the appropriate C function to optimally process a given data set.
You could do it in C++, but it wouldn't be easy, safe, or recommended.
Generate the text of the source code
invoke the compiler (fork & exec) to build a dynamic library. In gcc, you can pass the source code you want to compile on standard input, it doesn't have to be in a file.
Load the library (LoadLibrary() on windows, dlopen() on linux)
get a function pointer to whatever function you want (GetProcAddress() on windows, dlsym() on linux)
If you want to replace an existing function, if it's a virtual function you could modify the v-table to point to the new function (that part especially is a horrible idea fraught with peril). The location of the v-table or the format of it isn't part of the C++ standard, but all the toolchains I've used have been consistent within themselves, so once you figure out how they do it, it probably won't break.
Easy enough in Perl.
*some_func = sub($) {
my $arg = shift;
print $arg, "\n";
};
some_func('foo');
Re Sam Saffron's request:
*hello_world = sub() {
print "oops";
};
hello_world();
*hello_world = sub() {
print "hello world";
};
hello_world();
In PLSQL:
create or replace procedure test
as
begin
execute immediate '
create or replace procedure test2
as
begin
null;
end;
';
end;
/
Here's something else in Python (in addition to luc's answer), which I am not recommending, but just to show it - there is exec, which can execute a string which you could build to be whatever code...
I/O shown here is from a Python 2.5.2 interpreter session. Just some simple examples of constructing strings to execute from substrings (>>> is the interpreter prompt)...
>>> def_string = 'def my_func'
>>> param_string_1 = '():'
>>> param_string_2 = '(x):'
>>> do_string_1 = ' print "Do whatever."'
>>> do_string_2 = ' print "Do something with", x'
>>> do_string_3 = ' print "Do whatever else."'
>>> do_string_4 = ' print "Do something else with", x'
>>> def_1 = '\n'.join([def_string+param_string_1, do_string_1, do_string_3])
>>> print def_1
def my_func():
print "Do whatever."
print "Do whatever else."
>>> exec def_1
>>> my_func()
Do whatever.
Do whatever else.
>>> def_2 = '\n'.join([def_string+param_string_2, do_string_2, do_string_4])
>>> print def_2
def my_func(x):
print "Do something with", x
print "Do something else with", x
>>> exec def_2
>>> my_func('Tom Ritter')
Do something with Tom Ritter
Do something else with Tom Ritter
>>>
Trivial in Ruby:
def hello_world; puts "oops"; end
hello_world
# oops
def hello_world; puts "hello world"; end
hello_world
# hello world
Of course that example is boring:
require "benchmark"
# why oh _why
class Object
def metaclass; class << self; self; end; end
def meta_eval &blk; metaclass.instance_eval &blk; end
end
class Turtle
end
def make_it_move(klass)
klass.send(:define_method, :move) { |distance|
puts "moving #{distance} meters"
sleep(0.1 * distance)
}
end
make_it_move(Turtle)
turtle = Turtle.new
turtle.move(1)
# moving 1 meters
def profile(instance, method)
instance.meta_eval do
m = instance_method(method)
define_method method do |*a|
puts "Benchmarking #{instance.class} #{method}"
puts Benchmark.measure {
m.bind(instance).call(*a)
}
end
end
end
profile(turtle, :move)
turtle.move(10)
# Benchmarking Turtle move
# moving 10 meters
# 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 1.000994)
Turtle.new.move(3)
# moving 3 meters
The code above:
Defines a blank class
Adds a method to it
Grabs an instance
Intercepts that method on that instance only
Changing what a function does is supported in a lot of languages, and it's not as complicated as you might think. In functional languages, functions are values, and function names are symbols that are bound to them like any variable. If the language allows you to reassign the symbol to a different function, this is trivial.
I think the more interesting features are the ability to get the source code for a function (toString above) and to create a new function from a string (eval in this case).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm personally an advocate of the ternary operator: () ? :
I do realize that it has its place, but I have come across many programmers that are completely against ever using it, and some that use it too often.
What are your feelings on it? What interesting code have you seen using it?
Use it for simple expressions only:
int a = (b > 10) ? c : d;
Don't chain or nest ternary operators as it hard to read and confusing:
int a = b > 10 ? c < 20 ? 50 : 80 : e == 2 ? 4 : 8;
Moreover, when using ternary operator, consider formatting the code in a way that improves readability:
int a = (b > 10) ? some_value
: another_value;
It makes debugging slightly more difficult since you can not place breakpoints on each of the sub expressions. I use it rarely.
I love them, especially in type-safe languages.
I don't see how this:
int count = (condition) ? 1 : 0;
is any harder than this:
int count;
if (condition)
{
count = 1;
}
else
{
count = 0;
}
I'd argue that ternary operators make everything less complex and more neat than the alternative.
Chained I'm fine with - nested, not so much.
I tend to use them more in C simply because they're an if statement that has value, so it cuts down on unnecessary repetition or variables:
x = (y < 100) ? "dog" :
(y < 150) ? "cat" :
(y < 300) ? "bar" : "baz";
rather than
if (y < 100) { x = "dog"; }
else if (y < 150) { x = "cat"; }
else if (y < 300) { x = "bar"; }
else { x = "baz"; }
In assignments like this, I find it's less to refactor, and clearer.
When I'm working in ruby on the other hand, I'm more likely to use if...else...end because it's an expression too.
x = if (y < 100) then "dog"
elif (y < 150) then "cat"
elif (y < 300) then "bar"
else "baz"
end
(Although, admittedly, for something this simple, I might just use the ternary operator anyway.)
The ternary ?: operator is merely a functional equivalent of the procedural if construct. So as long as you are not using nested ?: expressions, the arguments for/against the functional representation of any operation applies here. But nesting ternary operations can result in code that is downright confusing (exercise for the reader: try writing a parser that will handle nested ternary conditionals and you will appreciate their complexity).
But there are plenty of situations where conservative use of the ?: operator can result in code that is actually easier to read than otherwise. For example:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if((isLessThan(object) && reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && !reverseOrder)) {
return 1;
if((isLessThan(object) && !reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && reverseOrder)) {
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
Now compare that with this:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if(isLessThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? 1 : -1;
else(isGreaterThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? -1 : 1;
else
return 0;
}
As the code is more compact, there is less syntactic noise, and by using the ternary operator judiciously (that is only in relation with the reverseOrder property) the end result isn't particularly terse.
It's a question of style, really; the subconscious rules I tend to follow are:
Only evaluate 1 expression - so foo = (bar > baz) ? true : false, but NOT foo = (bar > baz && lotto && someArray.Contains(someValue)) ? true : false
If I'm using it for display logic, e.g. <%= (foo) ? "Yes" : "No" %>
Only really use it for assignment; never flow logic (so never (foo) ? FooIsTrue(foo) : FooIsALie(foo) ) Flow logic in ternary is itself a lie, ignore that last point.
I like it because it's concise and elegant for simple assignment operations.
Like so many opinion questions, the answer is inevitably: it depends
For something like:
return x ? "Yes" : "No";
I think that is much more concise (and quicker for me to parse) than:
if (x) {
return "Yes";
} else {
return "No";
}
Now if your conditional expression is complex, then the ternary operation is not a good choice. Something like:
x && y && z >= 10 && s.Length == 0 || !foo
is not a good candidate for the ternary operator.
As an aside, if you are a C programmer, GCC actually has an extension that allows you to exclude the if-true portion of the ternary, like this:
/* 'y' is a char * */
const char *x = y ? : "Not set";
Which will set x to y assuming y is not NULL. Good stuff.
In my mind, it only makes sense to use the ternary operator in cases where an expression is needed.
In other cases, it seems like the ternary operator decreases clarity.
I use the ternary operator wherever I can, unless it makes the code extremely hard to read, but then that's usually just an indication that my code could use a little refactoring.
It always puzzles me how some people think the ternary operator is a "hidden" feature or is somewhat mysterious. It's one of the first things I learnt when I start programming in C, and I don't think it decreases readability at all. It's a natural part of the language.
By the measure of cyclomatic complexity, the use of if statements or the ternary operator are equivalent. So by that measure, the answer is no, the complexity would be exactly the same as before.
By other measures such as readability, maintainability, and DRY (don't repeat yourself), either choice may prove better than the other.
I use it quite often in places where I'm constrained to work in a constructor - for example, the new .NET 3.5 LINQ to XML constructs - to define default values when an optional parameter is null.
Contrived example:
var e = new XElement("Something",
param == null ? new XElement("Value", "Default")
: new XElement("Value", param.ToString())
);
or (thanks asterite)
var e = new XElement("Something",
new XElement("Value",
param == null ? "Default"
: param.ToString()
)
);
No matter whether you use the ternary operator or not, making sure your code is readable is the important thing. Any construct can be made unreadable.
I agree with jmulder: it shouldn't be used in place of a if, but it has its place for return expression or inside an expression:
echo "Result: " + n + " meter" + (n != 1 ? "s" : "");
return a == null ? "null" : a;
The former is just an example, and better internationalisation and localisation support of plural should be used!
If you're using the ternary operator for a simple conditional assignment I think it's fine. I've seen it (ab)used to control program flow without even making an assignment, and I think that should be avoided. Use an if statement in these cases.
(Hack of the day)
#define IF(x) x ?
#define ELSE :
Then you can do if-then-else as expression:
int b = IF(condition1) res1
ELSE IF(condition2) res2
ELSE IF(conditions3) res3
ELSE res4;
I think the ternary operator should be used when needed. It is obviously a very subjective choice, but I find that a simple expression (specially as a return expression) is much clearer than a full test. Example in C/C++:
return (a>0)?a:0;
Compared to:
if(a>0) return a;
else return 0;
You also have the case where the solution is between the ternary operator and creating a function. For example in Python:
l = [ i if i > 0 else 0 for i in lst ]
The alternative is:
def cap(value):
if value > 0:
return value
return 0
l = [ cap(i) for i in lst ]
It is needed enough that in Python (as an example), such an idiom could be seen regularly:
l = [ ((i>0 and [i]) or [0])[0] for i in lst ]
this line uses properties of the logical operators in Python: they are lazy and returns the last value computed if it is equal to the final state.
I've seen such beasts like (it was actually much worse since it was isValidDate and checked month and day as well, but I couldn't be bothered trying to remember the whole thing):
isLeapYear =
((yyyy % 400) == 0)
? 1
: ((yyyy % 100) == 0)
? 0
: ((yyyy % 4) == 0)
? 1
: 0;
where, plainly, a series of if-statements would have been better (although this one's still better than the macro version I once saw).
I don't mind it for small things like:
reportedAge = (isFemale && (Age >= 21)) ? 21 + (Age - 21) / 3 : Age;
or even slightly tricky things like:
printf ("Deleted %d file%s\n", n, (n == 1) ? "" : "s");
I like using the operator in debug code to print error values so I don't have to look them up all the time. Usually I do this for debug prints that aren't going to remain once I'm done developing.
int result = do_something();
if( result != 0 )
{
debug_printf("Error while doing something, code %x (%s)\n", result,
result == 7 ? "ERROR_YES" :
result == 8 ? "ERROR_NO" :
result == 9 ? "ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND" :
"Unknown");
}
I almost never use the ternary operator, because whenever I do use it, it always makes me think a lot more than I have to later when I try to maintain it.
I like to avoid verbosity, but when it makes the code a lot easier to pick up, I will go for the verbosity.
Consider:
String name = firstName;
if (middleName != null) {
name += " " + middleName;
}
name += " " + lastName;
Now, that is a bit verbose, but I find it a lot more readable than:
String name = firstName + (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName)
+ " " + lastName;
Or:
String name = firstName;
name += (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName);
name += " " + lastName;
It just seems to compress too much information into too little space, without making it clear what's going on. Every time I saw the ternary operator used, I have always found an alternative that seemed much easier to read... then again, that is an extremely subjective opinion, so if you and your colleagues find ternary very readable, go for it.
I like them. I don't know why, but I feel very cool when I use the ternary expression.
I treat ternary operators a lot like GOTO. They have their place, but they are something which you should usually avoid to make the code easier to understand.
Well, the syntax for it is horrid. I find functional ifs very useful, and they often makes code more readable.
I would suggest making a macro to make it more readable, but I'm sure someone can come up with a horrible edge case (as there always is with C++).
I typically use it in things like this:
before:
if(isheader)
drawtext(x, y, WHITE, string);
else
drawtext(x, y, BLUE, string);
after:
drawtext(x, y, isheader == true ? WHITE : BLUE, string);
As others have pointed out they are nice for short simple conditions. I especially like them for defaults (kind of like the || and or usage in JavaScript and Python), e.g.
int repCount = pRepCountIn ? *pRepCountIn : defaultRepCount;
Another common use is to initialize a reference in C++. Since references have to be declared and initialized in the same statement you can't use an if statement.
SomeType& ref = pInput ? *pInput : somethingElse;
I like Groovy's special case of the ternary operator, called the Elvis operator: ?:
expr ?: default
This code evaluates to expr if it's not null, and default if it is. Technically it's not really a ternary operator, but it's definitely related to it and saves a lot of time/typing.
I recently saw a variation on ternary operators (well, sort of) that make the standard "() ? :" variant seem to be a paragon of clarity:
var Result = [CaseIfFalse, CaseIfTrue][(boolean expression)]
or, to give a more tangible example:
var Name = ['Jane', 'John'][Gender == 'm'];
Mind you, this is JavaScript, so things like that might not be possible in other languages (thankfully).
Only when:
$var = (simple > test ? simple_result_1 : simple_result_2);
KISS.
For simple if cases, I like to use it. Actually it's much easier to read/code for instance as parameters for functions or things like that. Also to avoid the new line I like to keep with all my if/else.
Nesting it would be a big no-no in my book.
So, resuming, for a single if/else I'll use the ternary operator. For other cases, a regular if/else if/else (or switch).
For simple tasks, like assigning a different value depending on a condition, they're great. I wouldn't use them when there are longer expressions depending on the condition though.
If you and your workmates understand what they do and they aren't created in massive groups I think they make the code less complex and easier to read because there is simply less code.
The only time I think ternary operators make code harder to understand is when you have more than three or foyr in one line. Most people don't remember that they are right based precedence and when you have a stack of them it makes reading the code a nightmare.
As so many answers have said, it depends. I find that if the ternary comparison is not visible in a quick scan down the code, then it should not be used.
As a side issue, I might also note that its very existence is actually a bit of an anomaly due to the fact that in C, comparison testing is a statement. In Icon, the if construct (like most of Icon) is actually an expression. So you can do things like:
x[if y > 5 then 5 else y] := "Y"
... which I find much more readable than a ternary comparison operator. :-)
There was a discussion recently about the possibility of adding the ?: operator to Icon, but several people correctly pointed out that there was absolutely no need because of the way if works.
Which means that if you could do that in C (or any of the other languages that have the ternary operator), then you wouldn't, in fact, need the ternary operator at all.