I miss the ternary operator - does anyone have a macro that allows a ternary operator in Elixir code?

I’m the person who usually rejects PRs if they contain a single if clause. In a language like Elixir, using conditional operators is a clear sign of a wrong-written non-idiomatic code. Ternary would have been rejected and ruled out by credo custom checks even if it existed. [End of the uninvited cry of the soul.]

Back to the ability of implementing it, no, that’s not possible in a nutshell, this syntax won’t pass the parser/lexer. OTOH, nothing (short of common sense) prevents one from implementing a macro with one of the allowed but not used by core pipe-operators.

foo = bar <|> :baz <~> :baw would be 10 LoCs.

There is a “ternary operator” in elixir, it’s the if macro itself:

if true, do: "True!", else: "False!"

In heex, you can do any of these

<div class={["btn", @active && "btn-active", @disabled && "btn-disabled"]}>

<div class={["btn", if(@active, do: "btn-active", else: "btn-inactive")]}>

<div class={["btn", {"btn-active", @active}, {"btn-disabled", @disabled}]}>

The two available options are usually the ones @fceruti already mentioned… Either inlining if or doing something like (a && b) || c for short. But I have to admit I’m also on @mudasobwa’s camp - I’d just avoid using conditionals as well and instead focus on the data-flow

TIL the {class, conditional} form exists. Will use that more in future.

Yeah, other than if your first option is falsey, the x = cond && opt1 || opt2 is a pretty good analogue, and it feels appropriately hacky, like you’re writing sh.

x = cond && opt1 || opt2

good enough, welcome back ternary operator

i knew i asked a dumb question but seeing the replies, im so glad i asked.

<div class={["btn", {"btn-active", @active}, {"btn-disabled", @disabled}]}> this is so good

You still gotta be careful here and should likely prefer to write it as @thiagomajesk suggested: (a && b) || c otherwise you don’t get the ternary behaviour if b is falsey:

iex> true && false || "oops"
"oops"

EDIT: Wait, what am I saying? The parens don’t solve that at all, lol. So ya, be careful of that.

Yeah, like I said “other than if your first option is falsey”, just that in practice that’s usually not the case.

supplemental_mod = if core_only?, do: nil, else Supplemental

Although there is a bullet-proof version

condition && (opt1 || true) || opt2

(please don’t use it at home or school.)