Re: To Trinary or not to Ternary

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?

Comment on Re: To Trinary or not to Ternary Download Code

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`	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom