I'd probably do something like
x = y ?? ( parseInt(z) || undefined) ?? 42
Thanks,
Michael McGlothlin
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
