Michael, If you've gone that far why not just have Person have a
getZip() method to encapsulate the null checking?
On Feb 15, 7:37 am, "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <t...@thenewobjective.com>
wrote:
> Looks like a code smell of bad design. If you have a Person object it
> would be unnecessary to do member sniffing tests and literal
> injections like this.
>
> So instead of this:
>
> var person = {address: {zip: 1234}},
> person2 = {};
> console.log("Person2 undefined: " +
> ((person2||{}).address||{}).zip || "no zip");
>
> I'd say do this:
>
> var person = new Person(new Address(1234)),
> person2 = new Person();
> console.log(person2.zip || "no zip");
>
> On Feb 14, 5:02 pm, Sam Merrell <merrell....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all
> > ,
> > What are the groups thoughts on safely accessing a nested objects
> > value that may be undefined? I recently came across a blog post [1]
> > from Oliver Steele where he did a shortcut that looks like this:
>
> > var person = {address: {zip: 1234}},
> > person2 = {};
> > console.log("Person2 undefined: " +
> > ((person2||{}).address||{}).zip || "no zip");
>
> > This takes the place of code like this:
>
> > if(person2 && person2.address)
> > console.log("Person2 zip: " + person2.address.zip);
>
> > Does the code lose readability when done with that sort of shorthand?
> > Also, is there the possibility of a performance hit for creating
> > multiple empty objects?
>
> > [1]http://osteele.com/archives/2007/12/cheap-monads
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
