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.


Reply via email to