groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shil Sinha <shil.si...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] new operator ?=
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:07:33 GMT
Elvis assignment?

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM Andres Almiray <aalmiray@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 <paulk@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 <jerrywiltse@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Gerald R. Wiltse
> > jerrywiltse@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Winnebeck, Jason
> > <Jason.Winnebeck@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:realbluesun@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:59 AM
> >> To: users@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.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message