Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.ruby > #7007

Re: Proposal for easier syntax for define-unless-already-defined pattern

Show all headers | View raw

On 29.07.2014 18:40, Eugene Gilburg wrote:
> Below pattern is very popular in Ruby, but does not work if the
> method returns `nil` or `false`:
>
> @obj ||= some_expensive_method()
>
> For more consistent and efficient use of this pattern, you'd have to
> write:
>
> if defined?(@obj) @obj else @obj = some_expensive_method() end
>
> Because above syntax is clunky, people tend not to use it, with the
> less efficient ||= being far more common.

Where is this less efficient?  I don't think it is.

> So what do you think of `?=` syntax below, to exactly replicate the
> above code block? It should check not value of variable but only
> whether the variable itself is defined:
>
> @obj ?= some_expensive_method()

Operator ||= works remarkably good in practice and for the rare cases 
where #some_expensive_method returns nil or false the user can use the 
test with #defined? explicitly.  Not sure whether that small benefit 
warrants a language change.

Kind regards

	robert

Back to comp.lang.ruby | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Proposal for easier syntax for define-unless-already-defined pattern Eugene Gilburg <eugene.gilburg@gmail.com> - 2014-07-29 09:40 -0700
  Re: Proposal for easier syntax for define-unless-already-defined pattern Eugene Gilburg <eugene.gilburg@gmail.com> - 2014-07-29 09:44 -0700
    Re: Proposal for easier syntax for define-unless-already-defined pattern Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-30 19:41 +0200
  Re: Proposal for easier syntax for define-unless-already-defined pattern Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-30 19:45 +0200

csiph-web