Coding Styles Again, or Getting LISPy?

Although in my previous post I argued that coding styles and formatting are only smoke and mirrors, latetly I found myself increasingly entangled in a dilemma concerning just that question. Namely, I suddenly found pleasure in writing my C++ statements using expressions rather than direct flow control constructs.
Want an expample? Here it is:

?

1 2 3 4

// housekeeping (type == QAmmMeasModel::MeasChannelNode)   ? removeItemRef(m_measDefEntries, m_measDefFilesSz, defFileName, defFileIndex)   : removeItemRef(m_rangeDefEntries, m_rangeDefFilesSz, defFileName, defFileIndex);

instead of the more mundane (or, if you want, normal):

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

if(type == QAmmMeasModel::MeasChannelNode) {   //........ } else {   //........ }

As such, it is rather to be seen as an innocent idiosyncracy of mine, but it didn't stopped there, culminating in the following substituton. Instead of the rather boring:

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

// houskeeping if(type == QAmmMeasModel::MeasChannelNode) {   assert(m_measDefEntries.contains(key));   assert(m_measDefFiles.contains(defFileName));     m_measDefEntries.remove(key);       if(m_measDefFiles[defFileName] == 1)     m_measDefFiles.remove(defFileName);   else     m_measDefFiles[defFileName]--; } else {   assert(m_rangeDefEntries.contains(key));   assert(m_rangeDefFiles.contains(defFileName));     m_rangeDefEntries.remove(key);      if(m_rangeDefFiles[defFileName] == 1)     m_rangeDefFiles.remove(defFileName);   else    m_rangeDefFiles[defFileName]--; }

I came to consider using something more funky, like:

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

// lispy? (type == QAmmMeasModel::MeasChannelNode) ?  (m_measDefEntries.remove(key),       ((m_measDefFiles[defFileName] == 1) ?      m_measDefFiles.remove(defFileName) : m_measDefFiles[defFileName]--)) :  (m_rangeDefEntries.remove(key),       ((m_rangeDefFiles[defFileName] == 1) ?      m_rangeDefFiles.remove(defFileName) : m_rangeDefFiles[defFileName]--));

You must admit that the second version is more succint, looks better and transmits some indefinite "guru" feeling. Unfortunately I had to let the asserts go, but it didn't occur to me as a great loss. So why did I delete the second version in the end? Simple. It was written for my client, and should be readable to all C++ programmers. In that way coolness was sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity ;) for the filthy lucre's sake ;).

Later in the day I chose the simpler solution and just wrote the removeItemRef() function hiding the ugly if() clause, but if I didn't do it, what do you think, which of the two versions should I had included in the code?