Written Statement Template: Fill & Download for Free

In the common law courts, an affidavit is considered to be a written statement of facts given under oath. It’s used as a means of providing evidence in court, to law enforcement agencies and authorities. In practice, outgoing information on the content of the law norms, as well as documents which are difficult to submit directly to the court, can be issued in a general affidavit form.Affidavit Forms: State Specific Affidavit Templates Online | USLegalForms

This is a largely a matter of stylistic preference. If you are writing code for a job, check your employer’s style guide. If they don’t have one, ask your co-workers. If it’s not for a job, use whatever makes more sense to you.As a general rule, however, the ternary operator should be used whenever the conditional produces a value, and the computations in each branch aren’t excessively large.If the branches are statements, which do not return a value, then it doesn’t make much sense to use the ternary operator. For example, I would not rewrite this to use a ternary operator*:if(baz){  DoStuff(); }else{  throw CantDoStuffException(); } The expressionbaz ? DoStuff() : throw CantDoStuffException(); just doesn’t make sense, even if it is syntactically valid.On the other hand, something likeString str; if(baz){  str = "foo"; }else{  str = "bar"; } is just begging to be re-written asString str = baz ? "foo" : "bar"; Frequently, however, you have cases where what look like statements (As opposed to value-returning expressions) in the conditional branches can be factored out into identical statement templates with a varying expression inside. E.g.,if(baz){  cout << "foo"; }else{  cout << "bar"; } This could be left as is, but you could also push the conditional down to the level of the string expression, rather than the stream writing statement, since the stream writing statement is the same in both branches. Then you getcout << (baz ? "foo" : "bar"); Which one of those is better depends on your style preferences, and on what kind of maintenance the code might require. If, for example, you had a different stream in each branch, like this:if(baz){  cout << "foo"; }else{  stderr << "bar"; } Then it would not make sense to use a ternary operator, and you might avoid using a ternary operator in the previous case simply to make it easier to introduce changes like this later.*Except in cases where the conditional needs to be shoe-horned into a syntactic slot that requires an expression, as some other answers have pointed out. But I consider the fact that it is sometimes necessary to do that an anti-feature of the C++ language, and there are often better ways to write that code.

There’s a great term for this: maximal munch.The default behavior of the tokenizer is to match as many characters as possible into a valid token before proceeding to the next token match.Thus, a+++b tokenizes as a ++ + b.If you had written a+++++b, this would tokenize as a ++ ++ + b, which would be a parse error.Now, I said that’s the default behavior. There are places where C++ applies some context-specific behavior that differs from the initial, context-free maximal munch.I’m thinking particularly of nested template instantiations. Suppose I wanted to instantiate a std::vector of std::pair<int, int>.Prior to C++11, if I wrote std::vector<std::pair<int,int>>, I’d get a compile error. Why? Maximal munch would treat the >> as a single token representing the right-shift operator, rather than two separate angle brackets that close the two template instantiations. To make it work, you needed to write std::vector<std::pair<int,int> >, with an extra space.As of C++11, thanks to David Vandevoorde, this now works. (Ref: Right Angle Brackets, and David Vandevoorde's answer to What was David Vandevoorde's experience with WG21 when fixing the angle brackets in C++?)Of course, there’s some minor fallout: If you want to use the >> operator in a template parameter, you should enclose the expression in parentheses.EDIT: See also the special case where you can make a+++++b work in Jerry Coffin's answer to How does C++ handle ambiguity such as int x = a+++b which is a valid statement?.