Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: That's while I love C++ over C Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 22:48:34 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 29 Message-ID: <87mtmhygul.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <874k8qaual.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="94ef091bbfb98893e007ef1406ee748c"; logging-data="27509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TyoqVgLS3fG9HmSE9o3N1" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fr9ctiBLbv1BXfbRPj2gXn4uGu8= sha1:ZlS6zdFKecrSaQd6lC73rrnd5Rw= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:82233 James Kuyper writes: > On 11/5/21 11:48 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> On 6 Nov 2021 04:18, red floyd wrote: > ... >>> No, use of the conditional operator is not a sacking offense.  Even when > ... >> It's not a good idea to code C++ for maintenance by people who don't >> grok the choice operator. >> >> Or who would insist on you calling it something else because that's what >> they've used to. > > Both the C++ and C standards refer to it as the "conditional operator". > That is, in fact, the title of section 6.5.15 of the C standard and > section 7.6.16 of the C++ standard. Nor is this new terminology - K&R > 1st edition used the same terminology. On what grounds do you criticize > someone for daring to use precisely the terminology endorsed by the > relevant standards and the founders of C itself? An irrelevant aside: It's also commonly called the "ternary operator", because it happens to be the only operator in the language that takes three operands. "Conditional operator" is more descriptive. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */