> I'm kinda disappointed here, I came here with a valid issue and no one seems
> to see a problem here,
No, You came with a valid issue and an alternative solution was provided.
> I just want a syntax option improvement which will avoid some
> behavior/performace issues.
The problem is that we
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:56:07 -0300, Denis Stepanov
wrote:
Guys,
Hi!
I'm kinda disappointed here, I came here with a valid issue and no one
seems to see a problem here, I don't want to fix it in my project we are
already using ifNotNull component I just want a syntax option
improvemen
Guys,
I'm kinda disappointed here, I came here with a valid issue and no one seems to
see a problem here, I don't want to fix it in my project we are already using
ifNotNull component I just want a syntax option improvement which will avoid
some behavior/performace issues.
It could pretty muc
> Definitely. I'd rather add the Object -> Boolean and appropriate other
> coercions instead of adding a feature to the property expressions.
>
> I'm adding them to my personal project now. I'll be happy to add them
> to the framework once the dust of this thread settles :)
I'm afraid it will bre
> There is, let say "address" is a Boolean
Boolean -> Boolean is a nonsense coercion, the typecoercer actually
checks if the type is assignable from the source type and returns the
input unchanged.
These:
Long --> Boolean
String --> Boolean
Already exist. Since they are a better match than Objec
> Is there any reason for Tapestry-IoC or Tapestry-core themselves not
> providing a direct Object -> Boolean coercion?
There is, let say "address" is a Boolean then you can't check for null, because
if it is null it will return false and if it isn't could be false too.
It will not work for defa
e
it directly now while Tapestry-IoC doesn't, so I against applying your patch
while I agree with the performance enhancement.
Cheers!
Thiago
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Null-check-property-expression-syntax-tp4726386p4731096.html
Sent from the Tapestry -
I am having the same kind of issues. +1.
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Denis Stepanov wrote:
>> Or do something like user?.address?.property
>
>
> Would it be better to use just "user?.address?" without contributing coercion
> for every object in a project? :)
>
> We already have ifNotNul
> Or do something like user?.address?.property
Would it be better to use just "user?.address?" without contributing coercion
for every object in a project? :)
We already have ifNotNull component I'm just trying to make Tapestry better :)
Text search revealed that we have 99 matches of
Or do something like user?.address?.property
Uli
On 24.08.2011 16:38, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Just contribute your own coercion from Object -> Boolean.
>
> On 24.08.2011 16:23, Denis Stepanov wrote:
>>> "X doesn't do what I want" is not a strong argument. In order to convince
>>> someone to apply t
Just contribute your own coercion from Object -> Boolean.
On 24.08.2011 16:23, Denis Stepanov wrote:
>> "X doesn't do what I want" is not a strong argument. In order to convince
>> someone to apply the patch, you need to make more efforts to describe you
>> issue. After reading all of your mails I
> "X doesn't do what I want" is not a strong argument. In order to convince
> someone to apply the patch, you need to make more efforts to describe you
> issue. After reading all of your mails I'm still not sure what is the issue
> with existing syntax. Please explain exactly your use case. As alwa
Denis,
"X doesn't do what I want" is not a strong argument. In order to convince
someone to apply the patch, you need to make more efforts to describe you
issue. After reading all of your mails I'm still not sure what is the issue
with existing syntax. Please explain exactly your use case. As alwa
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:52:29 -0300, Denis Stepanov
wrote:
As I wrote before, "!" doesn't do what I want, object needs to be
converted to a boolean first:
- null is converted to false
- unknown not null is converted to a string by calling toString metod
and then string is converted to a b
As I wrote before, "!" doesn't do what I want, object needs to be converted to
a boolean first:
- null is converted to false
- unknown not null is converted to a string by calling toString metod and then
string is converted to a boolean
ToString method is usually implemented for debug purposes
I have implemented null check see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1615
can be used with propertyChain expressions: "prop?", "prop.a.b?.c?",
"method()?".
Denis
> I think a more useful extension would be the Groovy :? operator
>
> expression ?: default-value
>
> This could even be combined with the safe de-reference:
>
> foo?.bar?.baz ?: computeFooBarBaz()
Elvis operator is a nice feature to have too, but it's something different, I
just would like
I think a more useful extension would be the Groovy :? operator
expression ?: default-value
This could even be combined with the safe de-reference:
foo?.bar?.baz ?: computeFooBarBaz()
BTW, existing syntax would do fine for you
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Denis Stepanov
wrote
> How does it differ from existing syntax? See the examples here:
> propertyChain : term '.' propertyChain
> | term '?.' propertyChain
> | term;
Right now you can only check if property is a null when chaining to another
property to prevent a NPE.
Maybe even better
How does it differ from existing syntax? See the examples here:
http://tapestry.apache.org/property-expressions.html
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Denis Stepanov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to suggest a new syntax for checking if the property
> expression value is a null:
>
> > value="?p
Hello,
I would like to suggest a new syntax for checking if the property expression
value is a null:
> value="?prop"
will return false if property "prop" is null or true if not
> value="?prop.a.b.c"
will return false if property "c" is null or true if not
> value="?prop?.a?.b?.c"
will ret
21 matches
Mail list logo
