On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 at 4:41am, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > Hari Krishna Dara wrote: > > I have hit this thrice already, while using the ?: ternary operator, in > > some conditions, you are forced to put whitespace to separate the > > operator otherwise Vim gets confused. Here is something that fails: > > > > let direction = (a:0?a:1:1) > > > > I had this issue before calling script-local functions from the > > true or false condition. The workaround as I said for the above is: > > > > let direction = (a:0 ? a:1 :1) > > > > The problem is, sometimes I have a force of habit to skip the whitespace > > in some places when I want the code to be really compact/tight > > (especially when with map(), filter() or \=), and I will not notice the > > problem until sometime later when the code gets executed. If the code > > happened to execute with a :silent, you may have to do quite a bit of > > debugging to find this kind of errors. Is it possible for Vim to parse > > this unambiguously? The usage could be even worse, something like: > > > > let direction = (a:0>1?a:2:a:1) > > > > The problem comes from the two meanings of the colon: as part of the > (?:) operator, or to separate the context prefix from the variable or > function name in v: s: g: l: a: b: w: t: &g: &l: > > To parse it unambiguously regardless of spaces, use parentheses: > > (a:0?(a:1):1) > and > ((a:0>1)?(a:2):(a:1)) > > are unambiguous (and more legible too). > > > Best regards, > Tony.
I know that this is possible, but as I said previously, it is a force of habit to compact as much as possible in some situations, though I normally prefer using whitespace and parenthesis to improve clarity. Also, the reason I mentioned using spaces is not really as a workaround but to show the subtle difference it makes to the parser. Once you use parenthesis, there is nothing really ambiguous about it. I have a suspcion that using parenthesis also didn't solve the issue in one of the cases (I remember it was calling script-local functions as part of map() expression). I have to try to reproduce it though, I don't remember it now. -- Thanks, Hari > -- Thanks, Hari __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
