Yeah that part was intentional. Not to many words have double letter
beginnings.
I like your idead about trimming that ternary statement, it clears it up a bit.
On Dec 18, 2007 4:25 PM, Eric Wald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > newval = (myval == someval) ? somefunction : otherfunction;
> > Expands out to...
> > if(myval == someval)
> > {
> > newval = somefunction;
> > }else{
> > newval = otherfunction;
> > }
>
> No, it expands out to
>
> if (myval == someval) {
> newval = somefunction;
> } else {
> newval = otherfunction;
> }
>
> > That works great on it's own, but if I'm trying to do it as part of
> > another larger statement it makes the whole statement overall less
> > clear.
>
> The statement in question, however, is a separate beast.
>
> letter = (counter == 0) ? toupper(letter) : letter;
>
> is better expressed as
>
> if (!counter) letter = toupper(letter);
>
> Even the first double-length line is better expressed as a ternary
> inside an if, to avoid the same kind of assignment to self, and to avoid
> confusing the reader with nested ternary operators:
>
> if (letter == oldletter) {
> letter = (coin <= 60)? PickChar(vowels): PickChar(consonants);
> }
>
> What I find most odd, though, is that you never pick a new character
> first, so this conditional is always true after the first iteration.
>
> - Eric
>
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
