Michael McGlothlin wrote:
Another place JS would create a consideration is NaN. You might want
that to play well with the operator. Possibly you could consider ?? for
You've got || for "wider range of nullish values". Proposal (and, in my
case, personally felt need) for ?? is to only cover null and undefined
(== null) selection.
a wider range of nullish values and ??? for ONLY undefined.
x = parseInt ("a") ?? 42
x = a.nada ??? 42
📱 Michael McGlothlin
On Aug 16, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com
<mailto:zenpars...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A link to a wikipedia article is not *actually* a proposal : )
As Michael points out, you need to at least provide some consideration
for null vs. undefined. I would also like to see some thought given to
how such an operator might interact with a null propagation operator,
discussed here:
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/existential-operator-null-propagation-operator
(Link appears to be temporarily not working...)
_______________________________________________
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
