Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!destroyer!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!neilg
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: TADS Coding problem
Message-ID: <neilg.760004606@sfu.ca>
Sender: news@sfu.ca (seymour news)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <2ihr10$prl@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <)> <2ii5k1INNrd9@life.ai.mit.edu> <2iid0g$ghh@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 08:23:26 GMT
Lines: 17

sderby@garnet.berkeley.edu (Steve Derby) writes:

>Hmm. I'm fairly certain I've used the ?: operator within <<>> brackets before.
>Now that I think about it, I'm 100% certain, for such things as:
>"The oven is <<(self.isActive) ? "on" : "off">>.";

 I don't think there's any need to bracket the argument. The ?
operator works fine most of the time, but for some obscure reason it
won't work with functions like parseAskobj that generate error
messages which override the standard TADS errors. Mike Roberts is
aware of the problem.

 PS: in my previous followup to the original question I omitted the
"else" from the suggested replacement. Dave Baggett's code fix has the
else and would give the desired behaviour.

 - Neil K.
