Elvis assignment? On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Long live pompaduor walrus ... > > What would be an appropriate nickname for ?=, I wonder. > > ------------------------------------------- > Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast > http://jroller.com/aalmiray > http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray > -- > What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. > There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, > and those who don't. > To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > For all our other operators of the form: > > a X= b > > it is shorthand for: > > a = a X b > > So, to follow that convention the operator is: > > a ?:= b > > which as per previous discussions is a bit cumbersome, so I am +1 for > the shortened form so long as we document appropriately. > > Paul. > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerald Wiltse <jerrywil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +1 > > > > Gerald R. Wiltse > > jerrywil...@gmail.com > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Winnebeck, Jason > > <jason.winneb...@windstream.com> wrote: > >> > >> At first I was going to vote 0, because I feel like a = a ?: b is clear > >> (and I compare it to a = a || b from JS). However, looking at the dev > list, > >> I definitely see a nice case for it: > >> > >> person.name.last = person.name.last ?: "unknown" > >> > >> When you have a non-trivial assignment expression, I see the benefit: > >> > >> person.name.last ?= "unknown" > >> > >> However, I feel like it is not intuitive or clear. But, I don't think > the > >> operator hurts, and it's certainly not any less intuitive than <=> for > >> example or even ?: when seen for the very first time. It's an easy look > up > >> in Groovy docs, and if you don't know it and don't use it, it's not a > huge > >> loss. So it doesn't hurt to add it, and while not instantly readable, > it's a > >> trivial docs lookup when someone is reading the code. > >> > >> So, I vote +1. But, honestly, I don't see myself using it very often as > >> I'd normally use Elvis at time of initial assignment. I wouldn't put it > very > >> high on a prioritized backlog of things to improve for Groovy. > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Daniel Sun [mailto:realblue...@hotmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:59 AM > >> To: us...@groovy.incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: [VOTE] new operator ?= > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> If the new operator ?= (e.g. a ?= 'foo' is equivalent of a = a > ?: > >> 'foo') were to be added to Groovy programming language, do you like it? > >> (Yes: +1; No: -1; Not bad: 0) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Daniel.Sun > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-new-operator-tp5736931.html > >> Sent from the Groovy Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the > >> intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or > >> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please > >> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original > >> message and any attachments. > > > > > > >
