From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-07-20T22:47:06+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR? Added syntax for chains that possibly return nil

On 7/20/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 20, 6:29 am, "Robert Dober" <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/20/07, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm I like the expressiveness of the original proposal
> > look at this example
> >
> >    bar->baz.foo, which has to be written as
> >    (bar.baz ||| default).foo
> >
> > of course one could write
> >    bar.baz.foo ||| default
> > but it has more permissive semantics and will hide errors that
> >   bar->baz.foo
> > will raise
> > Robert
>
> But where is default in your example? You'd have:
>
>   (bar->baz || default).foo
>

But -> does not support default, that is a feature of your solution.
I have completely overlooked this :(, the -> notation implies nil as default.

And you are thus right about the example above, your idea is indeed powerful :)

Robert
> T.
>
>
>


-- 
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck