+1

Gerald R. Wiltse
[email protected]


On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Winnebeck, Jason <
[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:59 AM
> To: [email protected]
> 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.
>

Reply via email to