6 ms·

The multi-line comparators are definitely clearer and more readable to me. The 10(!) lines of code you referenced are actually only 8(!) lines compared to your

The multi-line comparators are definitely clearer and more readable to me. The 10(!) lines of code you referenced are actually only 8(!) lines compared to your 1(!) line because you included the function declaration and the final brace in your count. The line you proposed is 34(!!) characters wide. I wonder if your statement will continue to grow past 80(!!!) characters as your operand expressions grow in width? Will you transform it back to multi-line when that happens? However, I'm not sure why we're exclaiming line counts at all and now, apparently, character counts. Agreed on the semi-colons though.

illys 7y ago
Maybe you'll prefer return (a < b) ? -1 : // a smaller (a > b) ? 1 : // a greater 0; // equal
- beobab 7y ago
  This is a beautiful way to express multiple ?: expressions.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    I don't agree. It occludes the nested structure. We can regard the condition as the head of a clause, and the ? and : as heads of sub-clauses: A ? B : C which leads to: return a < b ? -1 : a > b ? 1 : 0;
    - atq2119 7y ago
      What you're writing here is equivalent to insisting that people do: if (a < b) { return -1; } else { if (a > b) { return 1; } else { return 0; } }
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - kazinator 7y ago
        Nope, since I haven't added any non-whitespace characters, rather it is like insisting that people do: if (a < b) { return -1; } else if (a > b) { return 1; } else { return 0; } Unlike your perfectly formatted code there, this has a bit of a visual problem: a one-liner consequent is fully braced, whereas a multi-line alternative isn't. Ternary operators are different. They have confusing nesting and do not support the equivalent of the "if/else ladder" pattern very well.
    - naasking 7y ago
      > It occludes the nested structure. The nesting is irrelevant to understanding the semantics, so this objection doesn't fly. The idiom is basically just a truth table with conditions on the left and the matching value on the right. You read it left-to-right, top-to-bottom, just like all other code. The first condition on the left that matches returns the value on right-hand side.
      - kazinator 7y ago
        > The nesting is irrelevant to understanding the semantics The nesting is absolutely relevant to producing the semantics. The following uses deceptive whitespace to suggest a nesting that is contrary to the actual nesting, interfering with understanding: if (foo) if (bar) xyzzy(); else flop(); The ternary operator A ? B : C is the goofy invention of demented mind. In nested situations, it is mind-bendingly unreadable. It behooves us to style it in a way that reveals the abstract syntax tree structure. In C, I would in fact recommend: #define if3(a, b, c) ((a) ? (c) : (c)) return if3(a < b, -1, if3(a > b, 1, 0)); Now we can have it in one line, yet it's clear.
        naasking 7y ago
        > The following uses deceptive whitespace to suggest a nesting that is contrary to the actual nesting, interfering with understanding Fortunately, the ternary pattern doesn't exhibit this problem. So again, this objection doesn't fly.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  What's the point? Why not just make it an if-elseif-else block and make it obvious?
  - verall 7y ago
    Ternary isn't the same as a branch and you want your this simple comparison function to get inlined every time
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > Ternary isn't the same as a branch It should be. The C ternary is just an expression-oriented version of if/elseif/else. Languages with a functional bend simply make if/elseif/else an expression in the first place e.g. in Rust it'd be return if a < b { Ordering::Less } else if a > b { Ordering::Greater } else { Ordering::Equal } Though obviously that specific version is an overly complex way of writing: return a.cmp(b);
      - naasking 7y ago
        Most compilers will probably reduce if-else and ternary to the same instructions. If it's a conditional value binding it might not be a branch but a conditional move instruction.
      - convolvatron 7y ago
        i find it really odd that of all the knocking back and forth on this thread, you are the only person to suggest that using symbolic values for 'greater than', etc, improves readability.
        masklinn 7y ago
        It's not really my suggestion though, it's just what Rust does (inherited from Haskell, interestingly enough OCaml does not do that) and I figured I'd post "proper" rust code rather than a bastardisation.
    - 7y ago
- baby 7y ago
  still less clear

illys 7y ago

Maybe you'll prefer return (a < b) ? -1 : // a smaller (a > b) ? 1 : // a greater 0; // equal

beobab 7y ago
This is a beautiful way to express multiple ?: expressions.
- kazinator 7y ago
  I don't agree. It occludes the nested structure. We can regard the condition as the head of a clause, and the ? and : as heads of sub-clauses: A ? B : C which leads to: return a < b ? -1 : a > b ? 1 : 0;
  - atq2119 7y ago
    What you're writing here is equivalent to insisting that people do: if (a < b) { return -1; } else { if (a > b) { return 1; } else { return 0; } }
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - kazinator 7y ago
      Nope, since I haven't added any non-whitespace characters, rather it is like insisting that people do: if (a < b) { return -1; } else if (a > b) { return 1; } else { return 0; } Unlike your perfectly formatted code there, this has a bit of a visual problem: a one-liner consequent is fully braced, whereas a multi-line alternative isn't. Ternary operators are different. They have confusing nesting and do not support the equivalent of the "if/else ladder" pattern very well.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > It occludes the nested structure. The nesting is irrelevant to understanding the semantics, so this objection doesn't fly. The idiom is basically just a truth table with conditions on the left and the matching value on the right. You read it left-to-right, top-to-bottom, just like all other code. The first condition on the left that matches returns the value on right-hand side.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      > The nesting is irrelevant to understanding the semantics The nesting is absolutely relevant to producing the semantics. The following uses deceptive whitespace to suggest a nesting that is contrary to the actual nesting, interfering with understanding: if (foo) if (bar) xyzzy(); else flop(); The ternary operator A ? B : C is the goofy invention of demented mind. In nested situations, it is mind-bendingly unreadable. It behooves us to style it in a way that reveals the abstract syntax tree structure. In C, I would in fact recommend: #define if3(a, b, c) ((a) ? (c) : (c)) return if3(a < b, -1, if3(a > b, 1, 0)); Now we can have it in one line, yet it's clear.
      - naasking 7y ago
        > The following uses deceptive whitespace to suggest a nesting that is contrary to the actual nesting, interfering with understanding Fortunately, the ternary pattern doesn't exhibit this problem. So again, this objection doesn't fly.
macspoofing 7y ago
What's the point? Why not just make it an if-elseif-else block and make it obvious?
- verall 7y ago
  Ternary isn't the same as a branch and you want your this simple comparison function to get inlined every time
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > Ternary isn't the same as a branch It should be. The C ternary is just an expression-oriented version of if/elseif/else. Languages with a functional bend simply make if/elseif/else an expression in the first place e.g. in Rust it'd be return if a < b { Ordering::Less } else if a > b { Ordering::Greater } else { Ordering::Equal } Though obviously that specific version is an overly complex way of writing: return a.cmp(b);
    - naasking 7y ago
      Most compilers will probably reduce if-else and ternary to the same instructions. If it's a conditional value binding it might not be a branch but a conditional move instruction.
    - convolvatron 7y ago
      i find it really odd that of all the knocking back and forth on this thread, you are the only person to suggest that using symbolic values for 'greater than', etc, improves readability.
      - masklinn 7y ago
        It's not really my suggestion though, it's just what Rust does (inherited from Haskell, interestingly enough OCaml does not do that) and I figured I'd post "proper" rust code rather than a bastardisation.
  - 7y ago
baby 7y ago
still less clear