While we all understand that excessive use of ternary operator
may worsen code readability (e.g. nested, multi-line expression),
there are few cases where using it actually improves code
readability. For instance, when a function takes a long list of
arguments out of which one depends on a boolean expression, or
when formatting "yes"/"no" or "on"/"off" values based on a
boolean variable (although one can argue that the latter is a
subset of the former). Just consider alternatives to:
virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<elem>%s</elem>\n", boolVar ? "yes" : "no");
In fact, this pattern occurs plenty in our code. Exempt if from
our "no ternary operators" rule.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
docs/coding-style.rst | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst
index bf0a80fbc5..038f18bda2 100644
--- a/docs/coding-style.rst
+++ b/docs/coding-style.rst
@@ -470,7 +470,9 @@ Pointer comparisons may be shortened. All long forms are okay.
if (!foo) # or: if (foo == NULL)
New code should avoid the ternary operator as much as possible.
-Specifically it must never span more than one line or nest:
+Specifically it must never span more than one line or nest. However,
+its usage in very basic cases is warranted (e.g. when deciding
+between two constant strings):
::
@@ -481,6 +483,9 @@ Specifically it must never span more than one line or nest:
char *foo = bar ? bar->baz ? bar->baz->foo : "nobaz" : "nobar";
+ GOOD:
+ virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<element>%s</element>\n", boolVar ? "yes" : "no");
+
Preprocessor
------------
--
2.35.1
