XYplorer Beta Club

jacky wrote:So you know how there are 3 "expressions" involved : condition, value-if-true, and value-if-false. Both "value-if-true" and "value-if-false" should not include any concatenation, nor "secondary" ternary conditionals.

But actually, it seems to work fine if the additional ternary conditionals is on value-if-false. Here:

Code: Select all

msg confirm("first confirm") ? "ok 1" : confirm("second confirm?") ? "ok 2" : confirm("third confirm?") ? "ok 3" : "and so on...";

Works just fine. Do we call that a feature, or do you want to "remove" it?

I'd vote to keep it, since it can actually be useful, but given how it can't work for value-if-true even with appropriate parenthesis (which would be the bug I'd say), that might not be be wise...

admin wrote:Oh, the restriction "should not include any concatenation" is not valid anymore since I added parentheses support. Of course, even without parentheses there's always some default binding of expressions, and in your example it happens work in some cases.

  msg ( (1==1) ? ( (2==2) ? "yes" : "no" ) : "error" );
  //shows: 0

jacky wrote:

admin wrote:Oh, the restriction "should not include any concatenation" is not valid anymore since I added parentheses support. Of course, even without parentheses there's always some default binding of expressions, and in your example it happens work in some cases.

Okay, so the way I hear you is : this works thanks to default/unwritten parentheses, and using the right parentheses, it should work all the time. How do you suggest I should do it then, to use another ternary conditionals on value-if-true ?

Code: Select all

  msg ( (1==1) ? ( (2==2) ? "yes" : "no" ) : "error" );
  //shows: 0