2 dots may be problematic when parsing numbers (yeah, I know it's probably not common, but it's still valid):
3..toString() Eli Perelman On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-10-29 19:22 GMT+01:00 Laurentiu Macovei <alonec...@gmail.com>: > >> This would be amazing operator!! >> >> var error = a.b.c.d; //this would fail with error if a, b or c are null >> or undefined. >> var current = a && a.b && a.b.c && a.b.c.d; // the current messy way to >> handle this >> var typeScript = a?.b?.c?.d; // The typescript way of handling the above >> mess with no errors >> >> However I propose a more clear one - as not to confuse ? from the a ? b : >> c statements with a?.b statements: >> >> var x = a..b..c..d; //this would be ideal to understand that you assume >> that if any of a, b, c is null or undefined the result will be null or >> undefined. >> >> Two dots, means if its null or undefined stop processing further and >> assume the result of expression is null or undefined. (as d would be null >> or undefined). >> >> Two dots make it more clear, more visible and more space-wise so you >> understand what's going on. >> >> What do you think folks? >> >> > Do you also have a proposal on how to handle a["b"]["c"]["d"], so with > possibly variable keys. > > In any case, I think that the existential operator (whatever the exact > sign used is) will be better then the current way of chaining &&. > > Regards, > Sander > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
