On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Brendan Eich wrote: >> Worse, instead of leaking an observable ConditionalReference (whew!), you've >> opted to break the equivalence between foo.bar() and %tmp = foo.bar; >> %tmp.call(foo) for the case where . is replaced by ?. -- in this case your >> proposal does not throw while the expansion does. >> >> The right extension for what CoffeeScript calls ?( is simply to use an >> unambiguous and backward-compatible extension, such as ?.( instead. > > Jeremy pointed out privately that the need for ?( is less acute in practice, > and also because of .call via the equivalences: > > foo.bar?(args) <==> foo.bar?.call(foo, args) > fun?(args) <==> fun?.call(undefined, args)
How are these equivalent? Won't fun?.call evaluate to undefined if fun is undefined and undefined(undefined,args) will throw... Allen > > But ?.( is shorter. It's awkward to use three chars instead of CoffeeScript's > two, and to have a dot in the middle where no get or set is implied. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
