and i thought !! was cryptic!

iirc, it’s essentially

TODO()

a way to tell the compiler, “I know this method isn’t implemented yet. just don’t complain."

in java, you’d do

throw new UnsupportedOperationException()

e.g.

def foo() = !!!

like that?

something like that.

its actually ??? in scala

Also,

listOf<Nothing>()

can exist, but guarantees to have no elements

Oh that's awesome

@svd: ah! it’s been a while since i’ve scala’d simple smile

also

return

,

break

,

continue

are expressions of type

Nothing

😆

That's why you can put them in the right-hand side of elvis:

val resource = loadResource() ?: return null

mind 💥

pretty elegant if you ask me

can you assign

Nothing

to a variable?

haha you can,

val a = return

will compile

@orangy: is there actually any use for a guarantee of a list of no elements? something like when overriding/implementing an interface or something?

wrong ilya? 😄

oops

it’s really confusing how slack uses both real names and nicknames

not if your nickname is somewhat similiar to your name

There is a preference for turning off real names.

but not assignment, because it's not an expression?

Proposal: let's make

.lazy()

to be an alias to

.asSequence()

It is much shorter (6 vs 12) and expresses the intent The only problem I see is the collision with

by lazy{}

, but at this point it is like a keyword reuse

I don’t think

lazy

expresses the intent that well. Also, the number of chars doesn’t matter to me to since code completion only requires me to type just a few chars. I therefor think

asSequence

expresses best that you want to have something rather "as a sequence". Code is mostly read, not written.

@mplatvoet: I suggest leaving general arguments out of this discussion. A few times different people have stated that in a memory-critical code

asSequence()

appears far too often. Now I experienced this on myself, and confirm that

asSequence()

hurts my eyes.

lasy

is a well known word, and here it suits well. We could even go for a property

.lazy

, but that would be slightly inconsistent, although not critical

I don’t really understand what you mean by “leaving general arguments out of the discussion”. The standard library is a general purpose library making it exceptionally suitable for general arguments.

And nothing stops you for adding this to your own library if this hurts your eyes that much