2009/11/16 Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com>: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:47, Rémi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >> Do you want to say something like "I need a closure here" :) >> > > No. I need a macro here! (But not a C-style one)
No, what you need is the Elvis null-safe operator ?: But then that was rejected wasn't it... Now, we have more objections against the method that was proposed to be used when the operator was rejected. It would be funny if it wasn't so maddening. As I've said before, nulls are everywhere in real code. Absolutely everywhere. And they cause so many problems in real, production code that they should be top of the list of issues that should be addressed. In this specific case, the question was "why include it when you can use a?b:c". Well, I've seen resistance by developers to that language feature, and I know some places outright block it in coding standards. For many, a method call is preferred, and "overhead" isn't what matters. Stephen
