Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was something missed for 12.6 about "?:"?
#1
The wording of advisory #12.6 indicates expressions other than effectively boolean ones are permitted as the conditional argument to "?:". Was this wording an oversight? In three other circumstances, the guidelines insist on effectively boolean expressions and it seems unintuitive to not require such in this case as well.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)