On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:19:02PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 01:01:21AM +0800, I Hsin Cheng wrote: > > > I see, thanks for your explanation. > > I thought the compilers behavior might alters due to different > > architecture or different compilers. > > So would you recommend on the proposed changes or we should stick to > > the original implementation? > > Personally I think my version or your proposed change are both more > > understandable and elegant than the lambda expression. > > Out of curiosity, where do you see any lambda expressions in the entire > thing? Sorry, it's my fault to address the expression as "lambda expression", it should be called as "conditional" or "ternary" operator. Thanks for your remind.
