Untitled.kt

# language-proposals

[LastExceed]

Untitled.kt

Untitled.kt

[spand]

Please read the channel purpose

[spand]

Your questions are just fine for #general

[LastExceed]

there, i fixed it. happy now?

[Ruckus]

Cosmetically, I'd prefer x ?- 7

[LastExceed]

that's just code style

[Ruckus]

Not necessarily. x ?: 7 is valid. x? : 7 is not.

[LastExceed]

oh you're right, i forgot about that

[LastExceed]

but keep in mind that your proposal would introduce a new operator, whereas mine doesn't since - is just an infix function that directly translates to .minus() (which is why i'm wondering why it doesnt work already)

[Dico]

It doesn't have to introduce a new operator? You can write x ? .minus(...) as well

[Dico]

I don't really like the idea though. Null pointer exceptions happen when you dot-qualify null. Therefore, the dot qualified expression is integral to the ?. notation to convey the intention. With arithmetic operators, the intention is not clear from the syntax at all.

[Derek Peirce]

I agree that the operator syntax should be reserved for non-null values, x?.minus(7) reads just fine and x?-7 will require a double-take no matter where the spaces go