![]() |
|
No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
Re: To Trinary or not to Ternaryby jweed (Chaplain) |
on Dec 05, 2003 at 17:43 UTC ( #312572=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
In fact, my edition of the Camel mentions Trinary as well as Ternary as names for the conditional operator (?:). I know that when I used C++, we used the word ternary. Some very brief research reveals that the word Trinary does not "exist," per se. But I believe that lwall & co. actually make a brief joke about the fact that trinary does not exists. Who is Kayser Söze?
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|