That's right Tim, it does work! Huhm... I can't exactly remember where I tripped into this one, as since I've abandoned this style and it's been a while. But yes, the explanation must be that the _first_ expression was not a boolean.
Loving this, thanks very much! vineri, 6 mai 2016, 23:11:17 UTC+2, Tim Holy a scris: > > I think the problem was expr1, not expr2: you probably didn't make expr1 > return a Bool. (Julia deliberately does not support "if cond" unless cond > is a > Bool.) > > Demo of correct usage: > > julia> x = 5 > 5 > > julia> x == 4 && "hello" > false > > julia> x == 5 && "world" > "world" > > Best, > --Tim > > On Friday, May 06, 2016 12:12:28 PM Adrian Salceanu wrote: > > The only place where I find the "end" requirement annoying is for one > line > > IF statements. When you have a short one liner, the "end" part just does > > not feel right. It would be nice if the "end" could be left out for one > > liners. Even PHP allows one to skip the accolades in such cases. > > > > If there's some other way of achieving this I'd love to hear about it. I > > don't like the ternary operator in this situation cause it forces me to > add > > the 3rd part as "nothing" or whatever. And doing "expr1 && expr2" only > > works when expr2 is "return" for instance, otherwise the compiler > complains > > about using a non-boolean in a boolean context. > > > > vineri, 6 mai 2016, 20:37:49 UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski a scris: > > > There is a long history of languages using this syntax, including > Algol, > > > Pascal, Ruby and Matlab. > > > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Ford Ox <[email protected] > <javascript:>> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> Is there any reasoning behind it? It seems to me like a weird choice > > >> since you have to type three letters, which is the complete opposite > of > > >> the > > >> goal of this language - being very productive (a lot work done with > > >> little > > >> code). > > >> On top of that, brain has to read the word every time your eyes look > at > > >> it so you spend more time also reading the code - tho this should be > easy > > >> to omit, by highlighting this keyword by other color than other > keywords > > >> (the current purple color in ATOM just drives me crazy, since it is > one > > >> of > > >> the most violent colors, so my eyes always try to read that useless > piece > > >> of information first, instead of the important code). > >
