The more I read this proposal, the more I feel the ideal solution is a preceding 'wildcard' character, to stand-in for a generic argument. If it wasn't in (widespread!) use, I'd suggest an underscore: ```const f = _.prop ```
Since it is, though, we need another one. How about a double-colon, seeing as it can represent property access on other languages? ```const f = ::prop ```, ```const g = ::[compProp] ```, ```const h = ::?optProp ``` On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, 11:43 Simon Farrugia, <simonfarrugi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was expecting that someone brings up the brackets property accessor at > some point. > I would argue that there is a bit of syntactic inconsistency since usually > when using the bracket accessors it is not preceded by a dot. > ``` > const getEmail = user => user["contacts"].email; // No dot between user & > ["contacts"]. > const getEmail = .["contacts"].email; > ``` > Having said that, the currently proposed Optional Chaining operator > (Stage 2) <https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining/> does > exactly that and more: > ``` > obj?.prop // optional static property access > obj?.[expr] // optional dynamic property access > func?.(...args) // optional function or method call > ``` > So I'd say that there is consistency with what is currently being proposed. > > Regarding the Optional Chaining operator, which precedes the dot. How > would that work? > > It would have to be something like this, if allowed. > ``` > > const getEmail = user => user?.contacts.email; > const getEmail = ?.contacts.email; > > ``` > > It does look odd at first, but it’s quite simple is you think about it. We > are just omitting the initial part of the expression. > > > > More Examples with Optional Chaining operator: > > ``` > > // With optional dynamic property access. > > const getUserEmail = user => user?.["contacts"].email; > const getUserEmail = ?.["contacts"].email; > > > > // With optional function or method call. > > const getJohnsEmail = getUserContacts => getUserContacts > ?.("John").email; > const getJohnsEmail = ?.("john").email; > > ``` > > > > The beauty of what is being proposed is that there is nothing new to learn > or any new weird operator introduced. > > Any weirdness one might find with the expressions above will already have > been introduced by the Optional Chaining operator. > > The only thing this does is to allow you to omit the initial (redundant) > part of the expression. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
