[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: marrying braket for ?: operator

From: Kevin Rodgers
Subject: Re: marrying braket for ?: operator
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:37:09 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041105)

Robert Marshall wrote:
> And it's probably not straightforward (for either case), you might have
> (x > 4) ? weeble::kerplunk(funky::gibbon ? whoop : holler()) : foible::gibber::eugh();

It would be a lot more straightforward if C-M-f (forward-sexp) and C-M-b
(backward-sexp) would recognize things like foible::gibber::eugh() and
weeble::kerplunk(funky::gibbon ? whoop : holler()) as single expressions
to be skipped over.

Kevin Rodgers

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]