Re: [RFC] Default expression

On 25 August 2024 23:42:20 BST, Bilge <bilge@scriptfusion.com> wrote: >On 25/08/2024 23:31, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote: >> It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is sensible. > >It should. But since it has apparently failed in that regard, I suggest you take me up on my >challenge to implement the grammar you want with a patch and you will quickly convince yourself one >way or the other. I think I have been perfectly consistent in saying that I am discussing the proposed language behaviour, not anything about how it could or should be implemented. If it's a case of "unfortunately, doing the right thing is impossible, so we're proposing this compromise", then that's a reasonable position, but not how this has been presented. I also think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the compromise gives away too much. In particular, I think allowing assignments and method calls to "read out" a value which was previously a private implementation detail accessible only through the Reflection API, is a significant language change with a net negative impact. If that's the required tradeoff to allow "(some expression) ?: default", then my position is we should do without it. Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]