Thread overview
[Issue 23349] Disallow assignments in ?: expressions
Sep 21
Bolpat
Sep 22
RazvanN
Sep 22
Bolpat
Sep 22
RazvanN
Sep 23
RazvanN
September 21
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23349

Bolpat <qs.il.paperinik@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |qs.il.paperinik@gmail.com

--
September 22
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23349

RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
Why would we do this? The else-part is required to have parenthesis because of the ambiguity, but as far as I can see there is no way you could have an ambiguity for the assignment in the then-part.

--
September 22
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23349

--- Comment #2 from Bolpat <qs.il.paperinik@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to RazvanN from comment #1)
> Why would we do this? The else-part is required to have parenthesis because of the ambiguity, but as far as I can see there is no way you could have an ambiguity for the assignment in the then-part.

It’s not about ambiguity, it’s about consistency.

--
September 22
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23349

--- Comment #3 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Bolpat from comment #2)
> (In reply to RazvanN from comment #1)
> > Why would we do this? The else-part is required to have parenthesis because of the ambiguity, but as far as I can see there is no way you could have an ambiguity for the assignment in the then-part.
> 
> It’s not about ambiguity, it’s about consistency.

I don't see why we need to limit something just for the sake of consistency. The limitation on the then-part is put in place because of the possibility of ambiguous cases. Since the then-part is always unambiguous, no limitation is put in place. I find that the argument of consistency is not valid in this case. Therefore, my suggestion is to close this as "WONTFIX".

--
September 23
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23349

RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--