+1 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Tankerbay <[email protected]> wrote:
> Default assignment? > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jeff Lowery <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Elsignment? >> >> — Jeff >> >> >> >> On Nov 23, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Daniel Sun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I like the nickname "Elvis assignment" for ?= >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel.Sun >> >> >> >> 在 2016年11月24日 04:18，"Guillaume Laforge [via Groovy]" <ml-node+[hidden >> email]>写道：<br type="att >> Sounds about right. >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Shil Sinha <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Elvis assignment? >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM Andres Almiray <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> > +1 >>>> > >>>> > Gerald R. Wiltse >>>> > [hidden email] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Winnebeck, Jason >>>> > <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] >>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:59 AM >>>> >> To: [hidden email] >>>> >> 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. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> 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> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> below: >> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-new-operator-tp57369 >> 31p5736959.html >> To unsubscribe from [VOTE] 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: Re: [VOTE] new operator ?= >> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-new-operator-tp5736931p5736970.html> >> Sent from the Groovy Users mailing list archive >> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Users-f329450.html> at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> >
