On 9/5/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick suggested: > > > At OSCON I was also thinking that it'd be really nice to get rid of > > the :: in the ternary and it occurred to me that perhaps we could use > > something like '?:' as the 'else' token instead: > > > > (cond) ?? (if_true) ?: (if_false) > > > > However, I'll freely admit that I hadn't investigated much further > > to see if this might cause other syntax ambiguities. > > I think the main problem there would be the *visual* similarity > between the two.
Indeed. The "logical" (bad pun intended) operator to match with ?? is !! (cond) ?? (if_true) !! (if_false) Ashley Winters
