Same here, +1 to ?= This wasn't explicitly stated, but I want to make it clear, regarding the semantics of this operator. I guess it implies "Groovy truth", not "null check" (and we could apply the same kind of optimizations as we have for ?: in static compilation).
2016-11-23 16:20 GMT+01:00 Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com>: > +1 for ?= > > Cheers > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Jochen, > > > >> Maybe we should start a vote of ?= or not... maybe on the user list... > >> then we see what people think. Daniel might have been a bit too fast > here > > I'd like to start the vote of ?= ;) > > > > Just ask whether like it or not? Or like Andres's vote, ask which > > operator do you like: > > 1) ?= > > 2) ?:= > > 3) none > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel.Sun > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5. > nabble.com/PROPOSAL-new-operator-tp5736886p5736922.html > > Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > Graeme Rocher >
