groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C├ędric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL]new operator ?=
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:25:39 GMT
Same here, +1 to ?=

This wasn't explicitly stated, but I want to make it clear, regarding the
semantics of this operator. I guess it implies "Groovy truth", not "null
check" (and we could apply the same kind of optimizations as we have for ?:
in static compilation).

2016-11-23 16:20 GMT+01:00 Graeme Rocher <graeme.rocher@gmail.com>:

> +1 for ?=
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Sun <realbluesun@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Jochen,
> >
> >> Maybe we should start a vote of ?= or not... maybe on the user list...
> >> then we see what people think. Daniel might have been a bit too fast
> here
> >     I'd like to start the vote of ?=    ;)
> >
> >     Just ask whether like it or not? Or like Andres's vote, ask which
> > operator do you like:
> > 1) ?=
> > 2) ?:=
> > 3) none
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel.Sun
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.
> nabble.com/PROPOSAL-new-operator-tp5736886p5736922.html
> > Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> --
> Graeme Rocher
>

Mime
View raw message