I would say +1 to ?= . There are a few cases where I would have used it.
Typically, configuring some defaults after the fact. I'm not saying this is
a good pattern in general, but it can come handy:
void finalize(Config config) {
config.with {
foo ?= 'foo'
bar ?= 'bar'
baz ?= 'baz'
}
}
2016-11-23 9:12 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>:
> At least between ||= and ?=, the latter, ?=, definitely make most sense
> for Groovy.
> Whether it's safe navigation with ?. or Elvis with ?:, we're still in the
> same realm of nullability and Groovy Truth.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jochen,
>>
>> ?= is similar with *=, +=, etc in their usage, and they are all for
>> convenience and readability. So if ?= does not make sense, why others does?
>> :-P
>>
>> a = a * 2
>> a *= 2
>>
>> a = a ?: 2
>> a ?= 2
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel.Sun
>>
>> --- 原始邮件 ---
>>
>> 发件人： "Jochen Theodorou [via Groovy]" <ml-node+[hidden email]
>> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5736906&i=0>>
>> 已发： 2016年11月23日 上午12:47
>> 收件人： "Daniel Sun" <[hidden email]
>> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5736906&i=1>>
>> 主题： Re: [PROPOSAL]new operator ?=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22.11.2016 15:25, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>> > It's a feature that's often be requested.
>> > I think Ruby's got an equivalent with ||=, and it's often the reference
>> > people give when exploring our Elvis operator coming from a ruby
>> > background in particular.
>> > I've had several opportunities where I could've used this operator.
>> > It might make for a nice addition.
>>
>> while I agree that ||= is more like what ruby offers we have the
>> problem, that for Groovy a||b always will be evaluated as boolean.
>>
>> In fact first we apply groovy truth to a and if that is not true, we do
>> the same for b and if that is not true we return false, otherwise true.
>> Which means a = a||b would not be equal to a ||= b if that is supposed
>> to be the same as proposed for ?=.
>>
>> What would come near to that is |, which is mapped to a method call to
>> "or". And then again, it has already a meaning for numbers, that does
>> not fit.
>>
>> So for me a new operator makes more sense. But frankly...
>>
>> > def foo(x) {
>> > return x ?: "empty"
>> > }
>>
>> or even
>>
>> > def foo(x) {
>> > x = x ?: "empty"
>> > return x
>> > }
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> > def foo(x) {
>> > x ?= "empty"
>> > return x
>> > }
>>
>> Is that really worth it? Does it really improve readability that much?
>> Or maybe someone has a better example?
>>
>> it is different for !in and !instanceof, because of the spacing and
>> because you may have them in complex expressions. But ?= is a statement
>> and I would very much dislike this usage as expression.
>>
>> For now I am -1 on this
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-new-operator-
>> tp5736886p5736900.html
>> To unsubscribe from [PROPOSAL]new operator ?=, click here.
>> NAML
>> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> View this message in context: 回复： Re: [PROPOSAL]new operator ?=
>> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Re-PROPOSAL-new-operator-tp5736906.html>
>>
>> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive
>> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html> at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
