That's a good idea. Yes because it's a bit confusing with the && since that returns false with the condition isn't satisfied, while an if statement would simply return nothing.
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:50:40 AM UTC-7, Mauro wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 11:37, Patrick Kofod Mogensen <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > But that is exactly what Forgy's code does > > > > expression && do_something > > Problem with this is that it is a bit cryptic. > > There is this related issue: > https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/16389 > > @Anonymous: why don't you post your suggestion there? Where it is more > likely to get traction. > > > is the same as > > > > if expression > > do_something > > end > > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:44:18 AM UTC+2, Anonymous wrote: > >> > >> I think maybe I didn't write exactly what I meant to. The expression > in > >> my original post should have been a boolean value, I want to mimic an > if > >> statement basically. Something of the form: > >> > >> boolean ? expression_to_eval_if_boolean_is_true > >> > >> Since the ternary operator mimics an if-else statement, it seems > strange > >> that you're given a convenient one-line form for an if-else statement, > but > >> not for just a straight if statement. Of course you could do > >> > >> if boolean; expression_to_eval_if_boolean_is_true; end > >> > >> but that's a bit clunky compared to the much slicker question-mark > syntax. > >> > >> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:11:29 AM UTC-7, Eric Forgy wrote: > >>> > >>> This is already available using '&&' > >>> > >>> expression && do_something > >>> > >> >
