Project Elvis

[Nick Treleaven]

On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 13:02:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 10:12:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>> All it does is take the expression
>>
>> x ? x : y
>>
>> and make it
>>
>> x ?: y
>
> Yes, that is an issue because it means that typos no longer are 
> caught. E.g. if you accidentally comment out or delete the 
> second expression.

The commenting out case can be prevented by making ?: an actual 
operator, so ?/**/: would be an error. (Also I think it's 
regressive to argue invalid code becoming valid is a good reason 
to prevent introducing a feature).

>
> Which is why I think ?? or some other choice would offer better 
> usability.

I think ??= reads better than ?:=, which looks like Pascal 
assignment.