3 ms·

Well, you said: > Assuming we do agree, there is no literal "if" being used when using the ternary operator. However, it doesn't take the concept to a higher l

Well, you said: > Assuming we do agree, there is no literal "if" being used when using the ternary operator. However, it doesn't take the concept to a higher level. So does it mean that you take back your original claim of "if in a different syntax" then and move the goalpost to "higher level"? If so, I think "higher level" is too subjective and I'm tired of discussing this topic. > No need for an explanation. Code will suffice. Perhaps I cannot write it myself, but I will eventually be able to understand it. Then please do me a favor and explain the requirements again, because I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind for the age constraint(s). > That may be true in the first instant, but time marches forward and familiarity grows. This isn't an issue. I don't think so. You have to actually use it yourself, over time. At least that's true for everyone I know. Otherwise the abstraction will not and can not feel better to you, because you assess it in the wrong context. Its like showing someone prolog code who is used to C. That just doesn't work. I can write you the code, but I doubt it will help you. You already called the other example of the divide function to not look great, so from there it only gets worse for you if that style is unfamiliar to you.

9rx 2y ago
> So does it mean that you take back your original claim of "if in a different syntax" then and move the goalpost to "higher level"? Take back what now? I said that your code example demonstrated an "if" statement written in different syntax; that it did not approach things from a higher level. The same would be true if you had written it with a ternary operator, if the language in question had such a feature. How does restating the same thing in a slightly different way lead to some kind of contradiction or whatever it is you are seeing here? > If so, I think "higher level" is too subjective and I'm tired of discussing this topic. I suspect once again you're getting too caught up in what words mean to you and not what they mean to me. As much as I'd like to use words as you know them, I haven't quite figured out how to drill into your brain to extract that information. Best I can do is use what I have and work with you to clarify intent as needed. But we've already discussed that to death. There was no need to say it again – especially if it has tired you. Why did you bring it up again, exactly...? > You have to actually use it yourself, over time. Time I have. All we lack is your code. > I can write you the code, but I doubt it will help you. Humorously, you've put way more effort into telling me this than the supporting if-statement approach would have required. Does this one again suggest that what you envision is so long and arduous that you are avoiding it because of the effort required? Otherwise you may as well try me. If it doesn't help we're still in the same place with much less energy expenditure on your part as compared to whatever this is. > It's like showing someone prolog code who is used to C. That just doesn't work. No, it works just fine. Prolog is perfectly understandable to read. It is harder to write without first understanding a bunch of technical nuance, but we don't need the uninitiated to write code here. Why not admit that you can't write the code in question? This act isn't fooling anyone.
- valenterry 2y ago
  > Take back what now? Sorry, it was late and you indeed mentioned that it wasn't making it "high level". My bad. Unfortunately, "high level" is quite subjective and I'm not willing to put the time to discuss if something falls under this definition or not. > Why not admit that you can't write the code in question? This act isn't fooling anyone. I asked you to clarify what exactly you want to see (which you didn't quote, even though you quoted basically everything else in my reply). In this particular thread here, there was no mention of age, that was in one of the other threads. So before I write code for something that you don't want to you Again, please explain the requirements for the code again. What exactly do you want to see written in this style?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > In this particular thread here, there was no mention of age Uh... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487167 With respect, are you okay? Between this and your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43502693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43502693] that was completely off the rails, I'm worried for you. You seem to have lost your sense of what is going on. If it is simply that you are posting too much and can't keep things straight, making up stories like that you could code something but won't because I wouldn't be able to understand your brilliance to cover your tracks, maybe it's time to stop using the internet for a while?

9rx 2y ago

> So does it mean that you take back your original claim of "if in a different syntax" then and move the goalpost to "higher level"? Take back what now? I said that your code example demonstrated an "if" statement written in different syntax; that it did not approach things from a higher level. The same would be true if you had written it with a ternary operator, if the language in question had such a feature. How does restating the same thing in a slightly different way lead to some kind of contradiction or whatever it is you are seeing here? > If so, I think "higher level" is too subjective and I'm tired of discussing this topic. I suspect once again you're getting too caught up in what words mean to you and not what they mean to me. As much as I'd like to use words as you know them, I haven't quite figured out how to drill into your brain to extract that information. Best I can do is use what I have and work with you to clarify intent as needed. But we've already discussed that to death. There was no need to say it again – especially if it has tired you. Why did you bring it up again, exactly...? > You have to actually use it yourself, over time. Time I have. All we lack is your code. > I can write you the code, but I doubt it will help you. Humorously, you've put way more effort into telling me this than the supporting if-statement approach would have required. Does this one again suggest that what you envision is so long and arduous that you are avoiding it because of the effort required? Otherwise you may as well try me. If it doesn't help we're still in the same place with much less energy expenditure on your part as compared to whatever this is. > It's like showing someone prolog code who is used to C. That just doesn't work. No, it works just fine. Prolog is perfectly understandable to read. It is harder to write without first understanding a bunch of technical nuance, but we don't need the uninitiated to write code here. Why not admit that you can't write the code in question? This act isn't fooling anyone.

valenterry 2y ago
> Take back what now? Sorry, it was late and you indeed mentioned that it wasn't making it "high level". My bad. Unfortunately, "high level" is quite subjective and I'm not willing to put the time to discuss if something falls under this definition or not. > Why not admit that you can't write the code in question? This act isn't fooling anyone. I asked you to clarify what exactly you want to see (which you didn't quote, even though you quoted basically everything else in my reply). In this particular thread here, there was no mention of age, that was in one of the other threads. So before I write code for something that you don't want to you Again, please explain the requirements for the code again. What exactly do you want to see written in this style?
- 9rx 2y ago
  > In this particular thread here, there was no mention of age Uh... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43487167 With respect, are you okay? Between this and your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43502693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43502693] that was completely off the rails, I'm worried for you. You seem to have lost your sense of what is going on. If it is simply that you are posting too much and can't keep things straight, making up stories like that you could code something but won't because I wouldn't be able to understand your brilliance to cover your tracks, maybe it's time to stop using the internet for a while?