On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 09:49:22 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
I don't know much about C#, but in C#, isn't EVERYTHING a
reference type? Meaning it always makes sense to check if
"myobject is null".
No, C# has value types (enums, primitives, and user-defined
types) which are not nullable. The n
"Roman D. Boiko" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172259), a écrit :
> On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 13:46:10 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> I guess that this operator is only really worth it in languages
>> where every type is nullable, though.
>>
>> David
>
> It might mean identity (return the argu
On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 13:46:10 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
I guess that this operator is only really worth it in languages
where every type is nullable, though.
David
It might mean identity (return the argument unchanged) for value
types.
On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 12:51:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 11:24, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
// a is null if user or address or street is null. No
exception thrown.
auto a = user?.address?.street;
But what would the static type of "a" be?
I don't think there is much doubt in thi
On 2012-07-13 11:24, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
I Agree. Looking at the Groovy link from Christophe I noticed their Safe
Navigation Operator ?.
Basicly it returns the final value in a dereference chain or null if any
objects in the chain are null:
// a is null if user or address or street is null. N
On 13/07/2012 13:31, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 09:49:22 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
I don't know much about C#, but in C#, isn't EVERYTHING a reference
type? Meaning it always makes sense to check if "myobject is null".
I'm still no expert in D either, but what would(should)
"Jonas Drewsen" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172242), a écrit :
> Can you identify any ambiguity with an ?. operator.
? could be the begining of a ternary operator, and . the module scope
indicator, or the beginning of a (badly) written float number.
Both case can be disambiguated by the pre
On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 09:49:22 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
I don't know much about C#, but in C#, isn't EVERYTHING a
reference type? Meaning it always makes sense to check if
"myobject is null".
I'm still no expert in D either, but what would(should) happen
if you tried to call ?: or ?. on
I don't know much about C#, but in C#, isn't EVERYTHING a
reference type? Meaning it always makes sense to check if
"myobject is null".
I'm still no expert in D either, but what would(should) happen if
you tried to call ?: or ?. on a value type? Writing "s is null"
gives "Error: incompatible
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 22:36:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/12/12 4:49 PM, David Piepgrass wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day.
Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
gcc used to have that extension and they dropp
"David Piepgrass" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172164), a écrit :
>>> Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day.
>>> Probably
>>> something like:
>>> (a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
>>
>> gcc used to have that extension and they dropped it...
>
> But GCC ca
On 12/07/2012 22:49, David Piepgrass wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
gcc used to have that extension and they dropped it...
But GCC can't control the C++ language spec. Naturally there
On 7/12/12 4:49 PM, David Piepgrass wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
gcc used to have that extension and they dropped it...
But GCC can't control the C++ language spec. Naturally there
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day.
Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
gcc used to have that extension and they dropped it...
But GCC can't control the C++ language spec. Naturally there is a
reluctance to add nonstandard featu
On 07/12/2012 09:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/12/12 2:37 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On 12/07/2012 19:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/12/12 12:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, _
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 20:37:14 deadalnix wrote:
> Do you know why ? It have been useful to me in languages that support it.
My guess would be that it didn't get used much precisely because it was an
extension. Most programmers don't use language extensions. They probably don't
even know tha
On 7/12/12 2:37 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On 12/07/2012 19:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/12/12 12:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
gcc used to have that extension
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 17:35:05 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
But on the other hand, C# has had it from day one and it's
still widely used and encouraged today:
It has been introduced in C# 2.0 and quickly gained high
popularity.
On 12/07/2012 19:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/12/12 12:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Jonas Drewsen" wrote in message
news:zwtvliaunccmtwmab...@forum.dlang.org...
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
Yeah, I've been planning to try
On 2012-07-12 18:24, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp = a, __tmp ? __tmp : b)
We need to combine it with the assignment operator as well:
Object foo;
foo ?:= new Object; // only assign if "foo"
On 12-07-2012 19:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/12/12 12:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Jonas Drewsen" wrote in message
news:zwtvliaunccmtwmab...@forum.dlang.org...
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
Yeah, I've been planning to try
On 7/12/12 12:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Jonas Drewsen" wrote in message
news:zwtvliaunccmtwmab...@forum.dlang.org...
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 18:21:33 UTC, David Piepgrass wrote:
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
...
But we can't base the decision solely on this fact. Then we
could add a million operators to the language just because
they seem neat.
Actually, we could! Great
"Jonas Drewsen" wrote in message
news:zwtvliaunccmtwmab...@forum.dlang.org...
>
> auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
>
> is short for:
>
> auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
>
> /Jonas
>
Yeah, I've been planning to try and get this into D one day. Probably
something like:
(a ?: b) -> (auto __tmp
Jacob Carlborg , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172056), a écrit :
> On 2012-07-12 13:35, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
>
>> Or the operator?? could be borrowed from c#
>>
>> auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
>>
>> is short for:
>>
>> auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
>>
>> /Jonas
>>
>
> I really like that
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 12:51:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-12 13:35, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Or the operator?? could be borrowed from c#
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
I really like that operator. The existential oper
On 2012-07-12 13:35, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Or the operator?? could be borrowed from c#
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
I really like that operator. The existential operator, also known as the
Elvis operator :) . It's available in man
Christophe Travert, dans le message (digitalmars.D:172047), a écrit :
> "Jonas Drewsen" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172039), a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
>>> if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be
>>> defined.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> O
"Jonas Drewsen" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172039), a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
>> if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be
>> defined.
>>
>> ...
>
> Or the operator?? could be borrowed from c#
>
> auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
>
>
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be
defined.
...
Or the operator?? could be borrowed from c#
auto a = foo ?? new Foo();
is short for:
auto a = foo is null ? new Foo() : foo;
/Jonas
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
...
But we can't base the decision solely on this fact. Then we
could add a million operators to the language just because they
seem neat.
Actually, we could! Great idea, nimrod! (inside joke)
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 14:08:55 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On 11/07/2012 13:18, akaz wrote:
So why do you do a proposal if this is not needed ?
I did not ask for it, I only reminded that it is possible to
define it "if needed". It's merely a suggestion. I was reading a
book and told myself:
On 11/07/2012 13:18, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
So why do you do a proposal if this is not needed ?
On 11-07-2012 15:42, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/11/2012 01:33 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 11-07-2012 13:18, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
i encountered the operator in RT operat
On 07/11/2012 01:33 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 11-07-2012 13:18, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
i encountered the operator in RT operating systems book:
c!!e sends the messag
On 11/07/12 13:47, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
Problem is that operator"!!" is already used asa twin operator"!". This
is shorthand for "is valid as bool":
I wouldn't be
On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 at 11:18:21 UTC, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be
defined.
Problem is that operator"!!" is already used asa twin
operator"!". This is shorthand for "is valid as bool":
When a type can be casted to bool, it is quicker to wri
On 11-07-2012 13:18, akaz wrote:
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be defined.
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
i encountered the operator in RT operating systems book:
c!!e sends the message e along channel c
c?x assigns to variable x the va
if needed, the operator !! (double exclamation mark) could be
defined.
it is just an idea, i do not have any specific use in mind.
i encountered the operator in RT operating systems book:
c!!e sends the message e along channel c
c?x assigns to variable x the value from c
maybe this could be i
39 matches
Mail list logo
