Note – the discussion about ternary initially started here, but that diff was split and now the code is here

Ok, so let's go with another suggestion based on what Tomek said to avoid empty cycles.

Now, there are 2 suggestions, among which the first isn't good in my opinion. So can we leave this as is or maybe do it as Tomek suggested?

If none of them works for you, then I'm out of ideas. This is such a simple case that it's even hard to come up with yet another alternative.

Continuing the discussion from the other diff:

As for the best alternative... I am not sure about that. I don't feel that strongly about this case honestly, but I'm sure there is some alternative if you look into it. I don't have the time right now to do that research... in general, the expectation is that the diff author does research in response to requests from diff reviewers.

Please, read my comment from that diff:

Honestly, I thought about this and do not see a decent replacement. What is an alternative here?

string str = this->value;
if (this->persistenceMethod == PersistenceMethod::BLOB) this->blobHolder;

This causes re-assignment, which is more expensive and less readable for me. The ternary is pretty straight and clear. If you have any good suggestions, please let me know.

Here I added an alternative ^

in general, the expectation is that the diff author does research in response to requests from diff reviewers.

I did it above. You didn't refer to my suggestion.

It's ok, this if here stands for the continuation of the put operation that already has begun. For safety (to avoid possible crashes if the logic failed for some reason) we can add a check here, will do (I mean we can throw if the put reactor is null).

@palys-swm's suggestion looks great! It's a simple solution that fits the rules listed here