Probably a stupid Idea but tell me what you think

[Evanski]

So what if... ? was a symbol for "if"

for example:
Normal-

if potatoes = 666
{
       potatoes -= 1;
}

Symbol-

?potatoes = 666
{
       potatoes -= 1;
}

waste of time? most likely.
Fun new idea to try when messing around with code? yes.

What do you think?

 

[Mert]

Costs too much and doesn't really bring something good to the table, in my opinion.

 

[ElectroMan]

Reminds me of the ternary operator. In some languages, a quick "if" statement can be inserted directly into the assignment of variable. Instead of...

if (*condition*)
{
     x = something;
}
else
{
     x = somethingElse;
}

...you can write

x = (*condition*) ? something : somethingElse;

It's debatable whether GML can benefit from introducing this, if it's not in the language yet. It saves some lines of code and can promote readability in some cases.

 

[IndianaBones]

Reminds me of the ternary operator. In some languages, a quick "if" statement can be inserted directly into the assignment of variable. Instead of...

if (*condition*)
{
     x = something;
}
else
{
     x = somethingElse;
}

...you can write

x = (*condition*) ? something : somethingElse;

It's debatable whether GML can benefit from introducing this, if it's not in the language yet. It saves some lines of code and can promote readability in some cases.

Ternary operator is available in GMS 2, not sure about GMS 1.4

 

[ethian]

(Watchs the normal code)
Not a stupid idea, it's almost good for me, as if potatoes reachs the number of the devil, potatoes seem to not want to reach that diabolic number, so their amount decreases...
It's almost good because it's bad if they reach to 0, so, what if they jusg reach a number that is not so near and not so far of the diabolic number? Can't be 660 or 670?

 

[Bearman_18]

@ethian is bringing some reason to the table, I'd say. The poor potatoes.

 

[Misty]

(Watchs the normal code)
Not a stupid idea, it's almost good for me, as if potatoes reachs the number of the devil, potatoes seem to not want to reach that diabolic number, so their amount decreases...
It's almost good because it's bad if they reach to 0, so, what if they jusg reach a number that is not so near and not so far of the diabolic number? Can't be 660 or 670?

666 is not the devil's number.

The Bible says it is the number the beast, and the beast is Man.

6=Carbon 6 protons 6 neutrons 6 electrons

Humans are carbon based forms.

 

[Mercerenies]

So what if... ? was a symbol for "if"

Aside from the already mentioned ternary operator, the language Factor actually provides a ? operator which does more or less what you describe. The equivalent of

if (argument0 < 666) {
  return "Less than 666";
} else {
  return "Not less";
}

in Factor would be

666 < "Less than 666" "Not less" ?

It's debatable whether GML can benefit from introducing this, if it's not in the language yet. It saves some lines of code and can promote readability in some cases.

As for this, I find the ?: syntax to be particularly unfortunate, as it is absolutely awful at describing what it does. I prefer the approach of Ruby and languages like it, where the keyword "if" begins an expression, rather than a statement,so you can do either

if (argument0 < 666) {
  return "Less than 666";
} else {
  return "Not less";
}

or

return if (argument0 < 666)
    "Less than 666"
  else
    "Not less"
  end

Then you still get the keyword "if" which is very clear, together with the nice expression syntax.

Language snobbery rant over.

 

[curato]

I don't think the variants with ? instead of if promote and kind of readability in the code and to me readability > brevity

 

[Mercerenies]

readability > brevity

MercereniesFactoryObject.newMercerenies().agreesWith(curatoSingleton.get()).toACertainExtent(Proviso.butSomeLanguagesTakeThisTooFar())