in reply to To Trinary or not to Ternary

I'm not a big fan of either of those words, as they don't sound obscure enough for the wierd a ? b : c of that kind of function. I've always borrowed "tertiary function" from type theory, which generates many pleasing puzzled looks.

Maybe we should design a word that doesn't have other roots. Let's see... Question mark, Colon.. Que - Co.... Quacko?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: To Trinary or not to Ternary
by thelenm (Vicar) on Dec 05, 2003 at 23:38 UTC

    Maybe it could be called an "interrothorpe", sort of like an interrobang and sort of like an octothorpe. Sort of.

    -- Mike

    XML::Simpler does not require XML::Parser or a SAX parser. It does require File::Slurp.
    -- grantm, perldoc XML::Simpler