This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Computer science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with ((WikiProject Computer science))

This article is merely a subset of the Null_coalescing_operator article, which has been around for much longer. They link to each other but say the same things. I recommend redirecting Elvis_operator to Null_coalescing_operator#PHP and removing this page. It's just duplication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.52 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A merge sounds reasonable to me. --K0zka (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted this merge. The "elvis operator" is a shorthand form of the ternary operator. It is distinct from the null coalesce operator. —ajf (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have articles on subjects, not on their names; see WP:NOTDICT. Since this operator has the same meaning as the null coalesce operator (with two parameters) and is clearly not the same meaning as the ternary operator (which takes three parameters) we should combine it in the article with the same meaning, rather than pretending that its varying syntax makes it something else. Or do you think we should have separate articles for the two mathematical notations ${\displaystyle e^{x))$ and ${\displaystyle \exp x}$?? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does NOT do the same thing as the null coalesce operator, and pretending it does produces the muddled mess that the null coalesce page became. Half the examples on the page don't coalesce null, they do a ternary operator-style falsiness check, which even the page itself acknowledges is "not a true null coalesce operator". The "Elvis operator" is the binary form of ?:. If we must merge it somewhere, make it part of the ?: article. —ajf (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is currently MORE fucked up when we have to explain how some forms of ?: is doing a reference thing and others are doing a boolean thing. --Artoria2e5 🌉 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning now that C# 6 also support this operator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.15.225 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in C# the ?? operator is the null-coalescing operator. The operator referred to as Elvis is the ?. or null-conditional operator. The functionality of it is to avoid NullReferenceExceptions. If you try to take

s = s1.ToString();

for instance and s1 is null it throws the exception. The Elvis null-conditional in C# is

s = s1?.ToString();

and says if s1 is null return null, otherwise perform ToString() on it and return that.

Please forgive mistakes, this is my first contribution in forever. 68.152.20.6 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of these examples in this article appear to show the ternary if operator instead of the Elvis operator. Are these examples still correct? Jarble (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither is correct, I must have missed that edit. Going to revert it. —ajf (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ajfweb: Factual errors like this one often linger for days or weeks before being corrected. Should we set up a peer review system for this article to prevent these errors from being propagated? Jarble (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe. I have this page on my watchlist to try and spot these kinds of things. The edits aren't that frequent, though. —ajf (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty disgusted with the reversal without any good reason by afjweb. I've pointed to the Kotlin Elvis operator:

https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null-safety.html#elvis-operator

which some person thinks is not an elvis operator, without indicating why. I've put in the example code of the Kotlin pages itself:

val l = b?.length ?: -1

Where b?.length may or may not evaluate to null.

@afjweb Would you be so kind to reverse the change? You may want to think a bit deeper and give a good reason before reversing these kind of edits, especially if you go straight against the author of a language itself (who the hell are you?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlstead (talk • contribs)

My name here is Ajfweb, not afjweb. I've reverted it since while Kotlin has an operator with the ?: syntax, its behaviour is not that of a short ternary, but that of a null coalesce operator. Thus, it is not the "Elvis operator" in the sense that other languages use. —ajf (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The description states Elvis is used to "obtain a value that is specified in the second argument if the first argument is false, and to return the value of the first argument otherwise". So the first argument should be a bool, and the check is for the argument being true or false, not being null or not null. On the other hand, under syntax the article says Elvis is equivalent to: if (foo != null) var = foo; else var = bar; This is clearly NOT a boolean comparison of foo being true or false, but a check for foo being null or not null, aka the null coalescing operator.

Btw., who defined Elvis operator vs. null coalescing operator in the first place? The "new" usage (writing Elvis, meaning null coalescing), seems much more sane to me than the "classic" definition. The classic definition basically says: Return "true" or any arbitrary value if false. What's the point of always returning "true" in the first case? In practical use, Elvis has turned into a null coalescing operator in most languages, just because of automatic casting from ANY type to a boolean that can be used for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.185.94 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After clicking through some links from here, I think ObjectiveC uses the elvis operator with the same meaning than the others here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_coalescing_operator#Objective-C Should we add it to the list of languages that support the operator?87.190.14.40 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a section that claims that the "Elvis operator" was so named because "?:" looks like an emoticon of Elvis Presley. This seems plausible. The source for the claim is Joyce Farrell's "Java Programming":

Java 7 introduces a collapsed version of the ternary operator that checks for `null` values assigned to objects. The new operator is called the Elvis operator because it uses a question mark and colon together (?:); if you view it sideways, it reminds you of Elvis Presley.

(Fragment found with Google Book Search.) This paragraph is factually wrong: Java 7 did not support the Elvis operator, nor does any version of Java (so far). So the name is definitely not in any of the Java specifications.

As far as I can tell, someone (but I don't know who) proposed adding the ?: operator to Java 7, but the proposal was not accepted. Possibly this person used the term "Elvis operator" in their proposal. Possibly this person was the one who coined the phrase. But none of this is certain.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No — Short-circuit evaluation covers a principle whereas the Elvis and Null coalescing operators are specific operators. All three deserve an article — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perl has 2 operators for this :

• || the logical or

https://perldoc.perl.org/perlop#C-style-Logical-Or

• // the defined or

https://perldoc.perl.org/perlop#Logical-Defined-Or — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.166.206.65 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]