Re: [swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Chris Lattner via swift-evolution]

To answer your meta question, no, we don’t want to add lots of operators.  We 
are willing to add them if they are very strongly motivated, but prefer not to 
if there are other ways to solve the problem.

In this case it sounds like:

   x = optionalValue ?? x

Is a reasonable substitute.

-Chris

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> You are right the proposal #0024 is very close.
> But in fact the logic is inverted.  
> 
> When using «=? » the right item is optional.
> a =? b assigns « b »  to « a »  only if « b »  is defined.
> So if an optional is defined =? will not erase its value.
> 
> But my real questions was…
> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
> Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?
> Is swift evolution the good place to discuss such question?
> 
> I don’t want to pollute your mail boxes.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> B
> 
>> Le 21 déc. 2017 à 19:12, Stephen Celis  a écrit :
>> 
>> Such an operator was proposed here: 
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/60a8980a66a0a1341871ec323797c5547d0e0925/proposals/0024-optional-value-setter.md
>> 
>> It was ultimately rejected: 
>> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-February/43.html
>> 
>> Stephen
>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.
>>> 
>>> What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
>>> « =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> // The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
>>> //  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
>>> infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence
>>> 
>>> public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
>>> left = right ?? left
>>> }
>>> 
>>> public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
>>> left = right ?? left
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
>>> 
> 
> Benoit Pereira da Silva
> Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
> Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
> https://pereira-da-silva.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✄ 
> This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of this 
> information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the sender.
> Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage 
> des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans agrément 
> préalable de l'expéditeur.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution]

possibly off-topic but what i would really find useful is some way of
expressing guard/if assignment instead of initialization so that

let geomSource:UnsafeMutableBufferPointer?
if let geometryFile:String = geometryFile
{
guard let _geomSource:UnsafeMutableBufferPointer =
Shader.openTextFile(Shader.posixPath(geometryFile))
else
{
return nil
}

geomSource = _geomSource
}

could be rewritten as

let geomSource:UnsafeMutableBufferPointer?
if let geometryFile:String = geometryFile
{
guard geomSource:UnsafeMutableBufferPointer =
Shader.openTextFile(Shader.posixPath(geometryFile))
else
{
return nil
}
}

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Celis via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Ah, sorry, I misread! For readability I think I'd still favor something
> like:
>
> if let b = b {
>   dict[a] = b
> }
>
> And I think some the arguments made in #0024 may still apply here, though
> feel free to discuss!
>
> Stephen
>
> On Dec 21, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Benoit Pereira da silva  wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> You are right the proposal #0024 is very close.
> But in fact the logic is inverted.
>
> When using «=? » the right item is optional.
> a =? b assigns « b »  to « a »  only if « b »  is defined.
> So if an optional is defined =? will not erase its value.
>
> But my real questions was…
> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
> Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?
> Is swift evolution the good place to discuss such question?
>
> I don’t want to pollute your mail boxes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> B
>
> Le 21 déc. 2017 à 19:12, Stephen Celis  a écrit :
>
> Such an operator was proposed here: https://github.com/
> apple/swift-evolution/blob/60a8980a66a0a1341871ec323797c5
> 547d0e0925/proposals/0024-optional-value-setter.md
>
> It was ultimately rejected: https://lists.swift.
> org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-February/43.html
>
> Stephen
>
> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.
>
> What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
> « =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.
>
>
> // The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
> //  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
> infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence
>
> public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
> left = right ?? left
> }
>
> public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
> left = right ?? left
> }
>
>
> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
>
>
> *Benoit Pereira da Silva*
> Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
> Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
> https://pereira-da-silva.com
>
> 
>
>
>
> ✄ 
> This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of
> this information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the
> sender.
> Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou
> usage des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans
> agrément préalable de l'expéditeur.
>
>
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Stephen Celis via swift-evolution]

Ah, sorry, I misread! For readability I think I'd still favor something like:

if let b = b {
  dict[a] = b
}

And I think some the arguments made in #0024 may still apply here, though feel 
free to discuss!

Stephen

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Benoit Pereira da silva  wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> You are right the proposal #0024 is very close.
> But in fact the logic is inverted.  
> 
> When using «=? » the right item is optional.
> a =? b assigns « b »  to « a »  only if « b »  is defined.
> So if an optional is defined =? will not erase its value.
> 
> But my real questions was…
> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
> Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?
> Is swift evolution the good place to discuss such question?
> 
> I don’t want to pollute your mail boxes.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> B
> 
>> Le 21 déc. 2017 à 19:12, Stephen Celis > > a écrit :
>> 
>> Such an operator was proposed here: 
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/60a8980a66a0a1341871ec323797c5547d0e0925/proposals/0024-optional-value-setter.md
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> It was ultimately rejected: 
>> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-February/43.html
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Stephen
>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.
>>> 
>>> What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
>>> « =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> // The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
>>> //  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
>>> infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence
>>> 
>>> public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
>>> left = right ?? left
>>> }
>>> 
>>> public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
>>> left = right ?? left
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
>>> 
> 
> Benoit Pereira da Silva
> Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
> Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
> https://pereira-da-silva.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✄ 
> This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of this 
> information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the sender.
> Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage 
> des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans agrément 
> préalable de l'expéditeur.

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution]

Stephen,

You are right the proposal #0024 is very close.
But in fact the logic is inverted.  

When using «=? » the right item is optional.
a =? b assigns « b »  to « a »  only if « b »  is defined.
So if an optional is defined =? will not erase its value.

But my real questions was…
Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?
Is swift evolution the good place to discuss such question?

I don’t want to pollute your mail boxes.

Best regards,

B

> Le 21 déc. 2017 à 19:12, Stephen Celis  a écrit :
> 
> Such an operator was proposed here: 
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/60a8980a66a0a1341871ec323797c5547d0e0925/proposals/0024-optional-value-setter.md
>  
> 
> 
> It was ultimately rejected: 
> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-February/43.html
>  
> 
> 
> Stephen
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.
>> 
>> What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
>> « =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.
>> 
>> 
>> // The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
>> //  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
>> infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence
>> 
>> public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
>> left = right ?? left
>> }
>> 
>> public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
>> left = right ?? left
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
>> 

Benoit Pereira da Silva
Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
https://pereira-da-silva.com 





✄ 
This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of this 
information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the sender.
Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage 
des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans agrément 
préalable de l'expéditeur.



___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Stephen Celis via swift-evolution]

Such an operator was proposed here: 
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/60a8980a66a0a1341871ec323797c5547d0e0925/proposals/0024-optional-value-setter.md

It was ultimately rejected: 
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-February/43.html

Stephen

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.
> 
> What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
> « =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.
> 
> 
> // The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
> //  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
> infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence
> 
> public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
> left = right ?? left
> }
> 
> public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
> left = right ?? left
> }
> 
> 
> Do you have such operators that you really use very often?
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> Benoit
> 
> 
> 
> Benoit Pereira da Silva
> Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
> Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
> https://pereira-da-silva.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✄ 
> This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of this 
> information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the sender.
> Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage 
> des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans agrément 
> préalable de l'expéditeur.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

[swift-evolution] Should we incorporate bunches of new operators / micro-syntactic sugar?

[Benoit Pereira da silva via swift-evolution]

Dear all,

That’s not ambitious but i think worth be explored.

What do you think for example of this Infix operator?
« =? »  allows to express optional assignments  in a very concise way.


// The `=? operator allows simplify optional assignements :
//  `a = b ?? a` can be written : `a =? b`
infix operator =?: AssignmentPrecedence

public func =? ( left:inout T?, right: T? ){
left = right ?? left
}

public func =? ( left:inout T, right: T? ){
left = right ?? left
}


Do you have such operators that you really use very often?



Best regards 

Benoit



Benoit Pereira da Silva
Ultra Mobile Developer & Movement Activist
Développeur Ultra Mobile & Militant du mouvement
https://pereira-da-silva.com 





✄ 
This e-mail is confidential. Distribution, copy, publication or use of this 
information for any purpose is prohibited without agreement of the sender.
Ce message est confidentiel. Toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage 
des informations contenues dans ce message sont interdits sans agrément 
préalable de l'expéditeur.



___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution