Still haven't seen a convincing example but if generally everybody thinks is a must have I'll look quietly aside.
Take care On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Le 21 mai 2014 à 01:30, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > > FWIW I think having silent failures all over is not desirable so I'd > like to know what's the concrete claimed need for this, if that's possible. > (I've only read there's a need but I don't find the rationale) > > The point of the Existential Operator in general, and of the details of > its semantics in particular, is not to fail silently (although it can be > abused for that), but to have a compact syntax for concrete cases where you > must be prepared to receive either null/undefined or an object (as it > happens when working with the DOM), and want to yield another value using a > definite algorithm (accessing properties, invoking methods). Or do you > think to a precise detail of the semantics of the Existential Operator, > where silent failures are encouraged? > > —Claude
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
