should the `orelse` operator be right-associative?

[torque]

Consider the following code:

pub fn main() void {
    const a: ?bool = false;
    const b: ?bool = null;
    _ = a orelse b orelse @panic("oh, no");
}

As of zig 0.11.0-dev.2298+5d63d1115, this fails to compile with the following error message:

example.zig:4:20: error: expected optional type, found 'bool'
_ = a orelse b orelse @panic("oh, no");
               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This error message indicates that the line is being parsed in a left-associative fashion, i.e.

_ = (a orelse b) orelse @compileError("should not reach this");

In my opinion, the more intuitive behavior would be for orelse to be right-associative, i.e.

_ = a orelse (b orelse @compileError("should not reach this"));

If this wasn't an explicit design choice, I think it makes sense to change it. Right-associativity would make orelse behave like a short-circuiting boolean operator, which I think is logical behavior given its naming and functionality. For directly applicable prior-art, both C#'s and Swift's null-coalescing operators are right-associative.

[hryx]

Note: possible interaction with the accepted proposal at #114 (comment) in which associativity is a factor (and which was written before orelse existed).

[N00byEdge]

I don't get how associativity plays into this...
if (a orelse b) orelse @panic()
here a is nonnull, b is never evaluated. The left hand side is nonnull so the panic isn't evaluated either.
if a orelse (b orelse @panic())
a is again nonnull and the right hand side is never evaluated.
This looks more like a compiler bug to me.

[nektro]

orelse isnt eager in its evaluation atm even for consts. that's why a orelse unreachable and a.? have different behavior for comptime-known optionals.