Thought I'd mention this has been discussed before: - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/existential-operator-null-propagation-operator - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-existential-operator - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/optional-chaining-aka-existential-operator-null-propagation - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/proposal-for-a-null-coalescing-operator - https://esdiscuss.org/topic/operator-was-es6-doesn-t-need-opt-in
Currently, here's what I've seen emerge out of these discussions as the most likely, each of them chainable: 1. `x ?? y` for `x != null ? x : y` 2. `x??y` or `x?.y` for `x != null ? x.y : undefined` In #2, the operator works similarly for computed access, function calls, etc., like in `f?.(x)` equivalent to `f != null ? f(x) : undefined` On Tue, May 10, 2016, 08:50 Bruno Jouhier <bjouh...@gmail.com> wrote: > `??=` is cleaner and avoids problems when the default is falsy but not > undefined. But then we also need `??`. > _______________________________________________ > 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
