Yigal Chripun wrote:
also, some thought should be spent on getting rid of the ternary op
syntax since it interferes with other things that could be added to the
language (nullable types, for instance)
Heresy!
The ternary operator is one of my favorite tools. If you want to get rid
of it, I think you'd have to make the 'if' statement into an
expression (which would open up a whole other can of worms).
As I showed earlier, there's no ambiguity between the ternary operator
and the nullable type suffix. The ambiguity comes from the case
statement. In my opinion, the best way to resolve that ambiguity is to
add braces around case statments, like this:
switch (x) {
case 1 { ... }
case 2 { ... }
default { ... }
}
But that might make it impossible to implement Duff's Device (blessing
or curse? personally, I don't care).
And it might imply the creation of a new scope with each case.
Currently, a case statement doesn't introduce its own lexical scope.
Anyhoo... Don't mess with the ternary operator!!
:)
--benji
