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-s
ional.
> 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?
ill 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 pollu
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 <step
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
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`
