[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