On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:22, "Herby Vojčík" <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
>
>
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Herby Vojčík wrote:
>>> I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
>>> into language, but all of CS-style soft-accesses could be solved very
>>> cleanly and consistently.
>>
>> No, because (a) the overhead of a new object is too high; (b) with any
>> kind of suffix-? or suffix-.? as you proposed it would be observable
>> that you get a new object instead of short-circuiting to undefined --
>> the new object is exposed in the language.
>
> What's wrong with it per se? Let it be exposed, let people use it. Some of
> uses will be wrong, they will eventually die, some of them will be fine, they
> survive (no need to add keyword or API for it, null.? yields it and it is
> usably short).
>
> And BTW, if foo.? is too long and abuse of dot, you can use for example
> postfix tilde to get foo~.bar, foo.bar~(), "bar" in foo~ etc.
>
>> /be
>
> Herby
Language-level support for the null object pattern would be pretty excellent! I
think, given the CoffeeScript grep stats (not to mention common `options =
options || {}` code), people are definitely using ? in that capacity. The
possibility of introducing something elegant like this seems like exactly why
getting in only property-access ?. would be a mistake.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
