Also, this particular use case could be addressed by adding an
equivalent of the stage 3 optional chaining operators to the proposed
pipeline operator: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator.
In this light, I've also filed an issue there:
the `do` operator might be good enough
```js
const z = do { const z = x?.y?.z; z ? doSomethingWithValue(z) : null; };
```
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:48 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> Le 13 nov. 2019 à 03:43, devlato a écrit :
>
> Hey folks,
>
> not sure if you haven't discussed something
> Le 13 nov. 2019 à 03:43, devlato a écrit :
>
> Hey folks,
>
> not sure if you haven't discussed something similar, but what do you think
> about making an enhancement for the ternary operator, to make it more
> powerful?
> I've created a small explanatory doc on GitHub:
>
I put forward a similar proposal a while back:
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/proposal-result-forwarding-ternary-operator
--
Dammit babies, you've got to be kind.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 02:46, Jacob Pratt wrote:
> Aside from the fact that using a non-reserved identifier
Aside from the fact that using a non-reserved identifier would break
back-compatibility, I'm fairly certain pattern matching would allow for not
recalculating the value while also being far more readable.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 21:43 devlato wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> not sure if you haven't
Hey folks,
not sure if you haven't discussed something similar, but what do you think
about making an enhancement for the ternary operator, to make it more powerful?
I've created a small explanatory doc on GitHub:
https://github.com/devlato/proposal-ternary-placeholder
Warmest regards,
Denis
6 matches
Mail list logo
