4 ms·

Is there a ternary operator yet?

digianarchist 5y ago
No and there likely never will be: https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form
- boring_twenties 5y ago
  That's what they said about generics, and yet here we are. edit: Wrong, see below
  - knodi 5y ago
    That's not true at all. Go core team always thought of adding generics in Go but Go core team couldn't reach a consensus on any proposed implementation and design for generics into Go, until this design. https://go.dev/blog/why-generics https://go.dev/blog/why-generics
    - boring_twenties 5y ago
      OK, I stand corrected.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- maccard 5y ago
  It's unfortunately misguided in my opinion. With a ternary operator you can initialize in one line, e.g. x := val ? foo() : bar() Versus var x Type // now this is default initialized, which may or may not be a valid state for your program if val { x = foo() } else { x = bar() } Honestly, I'd be fine with it being for initialization only (like the walrus operator)
  - randomdata 5y ago
    As best I can tell from the history books, the creator of Go, Ken Thompson, was responsible for inventing the ?: syntax (although the ternary concept is older). As such, there is probably nobody more familiar with what you propose than the Go team, so there may be some wisdom in the choice to actively not include it in Go.
    - maccard 5y ago
      Unfortunately the only info we have to go on is the link above [0], which isn't a good argument IMO. If there's other resources that say differently I'd love to hear them! [0] https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form
  - boring_twenties 5y ago
    How about f(a ? b : c, d, e)? The go alternatives are too horrible to even contemplate, but here goes: if a { f(b, d, e) } else { f(c, d, e) } or var tmp WhatFuckingTypeIsThisAgain if a { tmp = b } else { tmp = c } f(tmp, d, e) It's hard to say which one is worse, but there is no doubt that the C version is "unquestionably easier to read."
    - maccard 5y ago
      my gut reaction was "no, that's exactly why they don't want these sorts of constructs" but the alternative (only allowing it in init statements) is worse I think. Only allowing in init statements is how you end up with the c++ initialization mess. Re; your example, what about tmp := a ? b : c f(tmp, d, e) Even in C++ that's likely how I'd write it.
      - boring_twenties 5y ago
        Works for me.
  - User23 5y ago
nickjj 5y ago
I don't write Go code but I admire them for sticking to their guns to not include it. Having had to decipher nested ternaries in the past, it's not something I want to have to think about again. Python has some interesting shortcuts too, like being able to do `if 1 <= number <= 10:` to do chained comparisons but I much prefer the longer hand syntax. I have a solid amount of Python experience but no formal math background beyond HS Algebra. I often don't see this shorthand method to compare a range but when I do I always have to stop and decipher it. I know this thread isn't about Python but I think it falls in line with this conversation. A language that sticks to slightly more verbose syntax for the sake of crystal clear clarity is very appealing.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  just because someone can abuse a language feature doesn't mean you should bar every responsible programmer from using it.
  - nickjj 5y ago
    Yeah, but there are other languages that support the idea of there being many different ways to do something and also give you a lot of rope to either hang yourself or create "clever" solutions (this isn't a bad thing btw, besides Python I also really like Ruby too). I think we should respect language creators to keep a clear vision on their language, this way the audience who uses it can either strongly love it or hate it. If you try to do everything and cater to everyone then you'll end up with a worse result IMO. It's the same way with music. You wouldn't expect a deathcore band to release a country album because a small portion of folks were interested in that, it would alienate their true fans and would likely leave the band internally not liking that decision. If you want to listen to a different style of music then you can pick a different band or genre.

No and there likely never will be: https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form

boring_twenties 5y ago
That's what they said about generics, and yet here we are. edit: Wrong, see below
- knodi 5y ago
  That's not true at all. Go core team always thought of adding generics in Go but Go core team couldn't reach a consensus on any proposed implementation and design for generics into Go, until this design. https://go.dev/blog/why-generics https://go.dev/blog/why-generics
  - boring_twenties 5y ago
    OK, I stand corrected.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
maccard 5y ago
It's unfortunately misguided in my opinion. With a ternary operator you can initialize in one line, e.g. x := val ? foo() : bar() Versus var x Type // now this is default initialized, which may or may not be a valid state for your program if val { x = foo() } else { x = bar() } Honestly, I'd be fine with it being for initialization only (like the walrus operator)
- randomdata 5y ago
  As best I can tell from the history books, the creator of Go, Ken Thompson, was responsible for inventing the ?: syntax (although the ternary concept is older). As such, there is probably nobody more familiar with what you propose than the Go team, so there may be some wisdom in the choice to actively not include it in Go.
  - maccard 5y ago
    Unfortunately the only info we have to go on is the link above [0], which isn't a good argument IMO. If there's other resources that say differently I'd love to hear them! [0] https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form https://go.dev/doc/faq#Does_Go_have_a_ternary_form
- boring_twenties 5y ago
  How about f(a ? b : c, d, e)? The go alternatives are too horrible to even contemplate, but here goes: if a { f(b, d, e) } else { f(c, d, e) } or var tmp WhatFuckingTypeIsThisAgain if a { tmp = b } else { tmp = c } f(tmp, d, e) It's hard to say which one is worse, but there is no doubt that the C version is "unquestionably easier to read."
  - maccard 5y ago
    my gut reaction was "no, that's exactly why they don't want these sorts of constructs" but the alternative (only allowing it in init statements) is worse I think. Only allowing in init statements is how you end up with the c++ initialization mess. Re; your example, what about tmp := a ? b : c f(tmp, d, e) Even in C++ that's likely how I'd write it.
    - boring_twenties 5y ago
      Works for me.
- User23 5y ago

nickjj 5y ago

I don't write Go code but I admire them for sticking to their guns to not include it. Having had to decipher nested ternaries in the past, it's not something I want to have to think about again. Python has some interesting shortcuts too, like being able to do `if 1 <= number <= 10:` to do chained comparisons but I much prefer the longer hand syntax. I have a solid amount of Python experience but no formal math background beyond HS Algebra. I often don't see this shorthand method to compare a range but when I do I always have to stop and decipher it. I know this thread isn't about Python but I think it falls in line with this conversation. A language that sticks to slightly more verbose syntax for the sake of crystal clear clarity is very appealing.

lamontcg 5y ago
just because someone can abuse a language feature doesn't mean you should bar every responsible programmer from using it.
- nickjj 5y ago
  Yeah, but there are other languages that support the idea of there being many different ways to do something and also give you a lot of rope to either hang yourself or create "clever" solutions (this isn't a bad thing btw, besides Python I also really like Ruby too). I think we should respect language creators to keep a clear vision on their language, this way the audience who uses it can either strongly love it or hate it. If you try to do everything and cater to everyone then you'll end up with a worse result IMO. It's the same way with music. You wouldn't expect a deathcore band to release a country album because a small portion of folks were interested in that, it would alienate their true fans and would likely leave the band internally not liking that decision. If you want to listen to a different style of music then you can pick a different band or genre.