Monday 19 August 2013

CFML: Tickets for those operators I mentioned

This afternoon I posted an article suggesting some more operators than CFML might benefit from. At that stage I had not raised any bugbase tickets as I wanted to get a feel for what people thought before doing so.

I've had uniformly positive feedback, so I've raised tickets where necessary:

OperatorColdFusion ticketRailo ticket
??3589888Already implemented as a variant of ?:
.. / ...3614460RAILO-2579

Note that Railo already has a ticket raised for something along the lines of the safe navigation operator: RAILO-2565 ("Failsafe Operator (Borat Operator)"). However I think this is a poor suggestion and oversteps the notion of "garbage in, garbage out" where the ?. operator does not. It's trying to go too far, IMO. And - seriously? - the "borat operator"? The nickname "elvis operator" for the ?: null-coalescing operator was bad enough. Please spare us. (Yes, I know the precedent was already set, but the precedent was stupid. Don't perpetuate it).

Anyway, I invite you to go have a vote if you think any of these are a good idea, or even perhaps comment against the ticket if you disagree. Either way, have your say in the direction the language should take!

I'll also be keen to see the way the two companies react to the tickets. Although perhaps we already know the answer to that.