220 20694 <2242837.lDbo80ytWE@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Null -conditional and -coalescing operators Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:53 -0700 Lines: 39 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <2242837.lDbo80ytWE@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: <4c3e2ee7-2159-4e93-a439-7d5c94c38c9c@isocpp.org> <6a0ad653-4764-483b-afb5-74d444be15d9@isocpp.org> <09547076-d049-4d87-acc3-b851e6518942@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442988433 19472 80.91.229.3 (23 Sep 2015 06:07:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:07:13 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRBAEDRGYAKGQETR6ZZYA@isocpp.org Wed Sep 23 08:07:00 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f200.google.com ([209.85.212.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZedCk-0006Na-CN for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:06:58 +0200 Original-Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1sf18756246wic.3 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=v8TbP3xyZimhSForhEI0poOjtbnLnjHLeTyxKA4tqAc=; b=AxagufjsT/zQiXDRGwKOpfdITMhlUgYrKxVRZ/WBZtX823Izp85Gbe9/RrMvLS64sJ epTf3IL2YTr/RwvDoeqz4kyk3occZxwFgSMbTobgInWbQMHnLNw6c+cOmPUOwkYdw4tA 8oSIRjeDHcScp3QgaDzTmwk7wPQhHPpfgqK3bc6bzirxuUklOhEE4Ab4ObF8+IIVMj// F8ynBq+PWuzoNGzSO1VT2hv3GD/w+u2MXA2hLbE+ZGqJ8FCKtsWaf0H/0rEKmRsE0Qbf CdPh//zvcIaicX8EfnJLp0CtMwTV65Hmj1v0J1DClqEfqBrHIlMUqCY1Opex4HmnKtpk 7PSQ= X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzZk2xBsjHBiwGdDlcU73hzwy9+h2awfxGK+bv13WrX+xWH9dwi8m3M5AuJRNx5ZSCDod9 X-Received: by 10.181.29.103 with SMTP id jv7mr265851wid.0.1442988417408; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.86.39 with SMTP id m7ls248371wiz.23.gmail; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.107.130 with SMTP id hc2mr1694609wib.92.1442988416069; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from gondolin.macieira.info (gondolin.macieira.info. [78.47.120.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dj1si7280278wjc.70.2015.09.22.23.06.55 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) client-ip=78.47.120.188; Original-Received: from tjmaciei-mobl4.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2601:1c0:5803:81c9:e16a:f933:34c6:6d]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7302711B4C5 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:06:55 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/4.1.6-1-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <09547076-d049-4d87-acc3-b851e6518942@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: thiago@macieira.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=thiago@macieira.org Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:20694 Archived-At: On Tuesday 22 September 2015 10:38:58 joewoodbury@gmail.com wrote: > Thus if I wrote > > int val = connection ?: 5; > > your solution wouldn't work. Assuming that connection was a pointer here, you'd get an error about assigning a pointer to an integer. The ?: syntax with the missing second operand already has a precedent to mean a repeat of the first operand. Therefore, the above reads: int val = connection ? connection : 5; However, I would like to see the syntax standardised. When you're dealing with C code that returns error conditions, this is useful: ErrorCode err = some_function(); err = err ?: some_other_function(); err = err ?: some_third_function(); I'm not going to ask for, but it would be nice to have err ?:= some_function(); -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .