Rant after trying Rust a bit

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 21:27:17 UTC, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
>> I think it is actually kinda pretty:
>
>
> What about:
>
> int median(int a, int b, int c) {
>     return (a<b) ? (b<c) ? b : (a<c) ? c : a : (a<c) ? a : 
> (b<c) ? c : b;
> }
>
> vs.
>
> def median(a: Int, b: Int, c: Int) =
>   if (a < b) {
>     if (b < c) b
>     else if (a < c) c
>     else a
>   }
>   else if (a < c) a
>   else if (b < c) c
>   else b

Not really a spaces-to-spaces comparison...

to be honest, I'd probably just write that as:

int median(int a, int b, int c) {
    if (a < b) {
      if (b < c) return b;
      else if (a < c) return c;
      else return a;
    }
    else if (a < c) return a;
    else if (b < c) return c;
    else return b;
}

You don't need it to be an expression since it is a function, you 
can simply write return statements (which I kinda like since then 
it is obvious that that value is a terminating condition and not 
just the middle of some other calculation).

But if we were using a ternary, some newlines can help with it:

  return
    (a < b) ? (
      (b < c) ? b
      : (a < c) ? c
      : a
    )
    : (a < c) ? a
    : (b < c) ? c
    : b;

Indeed, there I just took your if/else thing and swapped out the 
else keyword for the : symbol, then replaced if(cond) with (cond) 
?, then changed out the {} for (). It still works the same way.



> Is the compiler always able to always optimize out the function 
> call by inlining it, as would be the case with
> a scope?

It should be.