=== on 25 Mar 2015, 20:23:33 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I slightly adjusted description and message.

=== on 26 Mar 2015, 14:06:04 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~evgeny.mandrikov] I put the message back the way it was - your version was a repetition of the title without the "The" at the front.

Also updated description.

=== on 26 Mar 2015, 14:12:53 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Thanks! LGTM.

=== on 16 Feb 2018, 19:44:12 Alban Auzeill wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] I removed this rule from the "Common Rule: Yes" because it is deprecated in favor of [RSPEC-1871] that is also part of the "Common Rule: Yes"

=== on 19 Feb 2018, 10:53:30 Freddy Mallet wrote:
I see your point [~alban.auzeill] and at the same time I'm pretty sure that few implementations of RSPEC-1871 raise an issue when a ternary operator returns the same value regardless of the condition as initially RSPEC-1871 was only targeting the ``++switch++`` and ``++if++`` control statements. But fine. 

=== on 9 Mar 2018, 16:04:34 Freddy Mallet wrote:
In fact [~alban.auzeill], this RSPEC is not deprecated by RSPEC-1871 but by RSPEC-3923 and indeed all implementations of RSPEC-3923 already cover the case of ternary operator. So no need to touche anything. Thanks.

