Nathan Nobbe wrote: > personally, i wont argue w/ the compact nature of the > statement; its nice. I agree. Very elegant. Thanks for the clarifications, folks. > its mysterious statements like this that make code fragile, > imho. i prefer the modulus approach. I would have agreed before reading the clarification. Not so sure now... At the risk of semantic nitpicking, and only because I find this discussion stimulating (pity us poor geeks), I might call "($r=!$r)" esoteric rather than mysterious, even though I'm the one who asked the question, suggesting it was a mystery to me. Garsh: In the early days, I thought I had to write: if ( strval($somevar) > 0 ) or if ( $somevar ) === true ) and found: if ( strval($somevar) ) and if ( $somevar ) mysterious. ! I suppose my point is that some things start out as mysterious simply because they are a bit esoteric, further down in the manual. But I agree with you, Nathan, in principle, about mysterious code making things fragile. When I first got comfortable with the ternary operator, I went crazy trying to write cool one-liner conditional statements with it. Then, months (or even days) later, when I needed to make changes to those one-liners, I had to scratch my head a lot to figure out what was what. I've since decided that sometimes, in the interest of de-mystifying my own code, there's nothing like a good old IF loop. My $0.02. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
