Sounds about right. On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Shil Sinha <shil.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. >> > >> > >> >> >> -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
