Ternary operator

[jstuyts]

@edgeone

show us, code examples, please, how it would introduce inconsistencies?

Again, I ask you if you have read this thread? If you use the Kotlin way of thinking instead of your current way of thinking, the use of the question mark for booleans is consistent: Ternary operator - #79 by jstuyts

@edgeone

show, please, code examples of redundancy?

Again, have you read this thread? You can already do what you need now: if (<some condition>) <some value> else <some other value>. Adding another notation for the exactly the same thing is normally called redundancy.

@jstuyts

Is it true that the introduction of a construct from another language can make a language less consistent?

@edgeone

in what case?

Well, what would happen if the s-expressions of (among others) Lisp was introduced in Kotlin? What should (x . y) mean in this case?

@edgeone

there are other things, that can slower compilation

And your point is? A feature may never be refused because it make compilation times terribly long?

@edgeone

in kotlin there is so-called elvis operator(http://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null-safety.html#elvis-operator)

but, actually, if “elvis operator” in kotlin can be used only for null-checking, then it aint a true elvis operator

There is no rule that states that the same operator must mean the exact same thing in all languages. Language designers can choose to use the common meaning (for whatever reason), but there is no absolute requirement.

Anyway, it looks like the Wikipedia page needs to be updated, because Kotlin assigns a different meaning to that operator.

@edgeone

one can write code in any way

Of course, but can you write what you need in a short notation now?

If you have a common use case where it is impossible to write a solution for, or the solution is unreasonably long, there is a an opportunity to improve Kotlin. But the proposed improvements must fit in the current philosophy and semantics, and/or it must improve developer productivity significantly.