I'm writing a code generator which produces Scala output.
I need to emulate a ternary operator in such a way that the tokens leading up to '?' remain intact.
e.g. convert the expression c ? p : q
to c something
. The simple if(c) p else q
fails my criteria, as it requires putting if(
before c
.
My first attempt (still using c/p/q as above) is
c match { case(true) => p; case _ => q }
another option I found was:
class ternary(val g: Boolean => Any) { def |: (b:Boolean) = g(b) } implicit def autoTernary (g: Boolean => Any): ternary = new ternary(g)
which allows me to write:
c |: { b: Boolean => if(b) p else q }
I like the overall look of the second option, but is there a way to make it less verbose?
Thanks
Even though the syntax doesn't evaluate in the expected order--it binds the conditional to the first option!--you can make your own ternary operator like this:
class IfTrue[A](b: => Boolean, t: => A) { def |(f: => A) = if (b) t else f }
class MakeIfTrue(b: => Boolean) { def ?[A](t: => A) = new IfTrue[A](b,t) }
implicit def autoMakeIfTrue(b: => Boolean) = new MakeIfTrue(b)
The trick is to interpret ?
as a method on a MakeIfTrue
object that binds the condition to the object to return in the "true" case. The resulting IfTrue
object now uses the |
method as a request to evaluate the condition, returning the stored true option if the condition is true, or the just-passed-in one if it's false.
Note that I've used stuff like => A
instead of just A
--by-name parameters--in order to not evaluate the expression unless it's actually used. Thus, you'll only evaluate the side that you actually need (just like an if statement).
Let's see it in action:
scala> List(1,3,2).isEmpty ? "Empty" | "Nonempty"
res0: java.lang.String = Nonempty
scala> (4*4 > 14) ? true | false
res1: Boolean = true
scala> class Scream(s: String) { println(s.toUpperCase + "!!!!") }
defined class Scream
scala> true ? new Scream("true") | new Scream("false")
TRUE!!!!
res3: Scream = Scream@1ccbdf7
(P.S. To avoid confusion with the Actor library ?
, you probably ought to call it something else like |?
.)