On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteayme...@gmail.com>wrote:
> This discussion I think is going into a useless complexity.
>
> Nobody (except w3c) is using null, or when someone is using it, it is the
> same way as undefined, and it is not explicit (ie a||b or a==b, not
> a===null), I remind some old code where we could see the use of null but
> can not find a single example of recent code, then the new operator(s)
> should treat it the same way I believe, the problem is 0 here
>
There doesn't need to be an explicit check for undefined - anytime null is
used as an intentional place holder and its value would be _otherwise_
undefined counts as well.
And for your information, I am not w3c and I use null frequently (the same
way w3c uses it).
Rick
>
> Le 14/06/2012 23:16, Rick Waldron a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick Waldron wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One way to have it both ways is to have multiple syntactic forms
>>> for default value initializers. EG:
>>>
>>> function f(a = 1, b ??= 2, c ||= 3) { } //assuming ??= is
>>> undefined or null defaulting guard and ||= is falsy
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly convinced that the additional complexity is
>>> warranted but it would place the choice into ES programmers hands
>>> rather us trying to anticipate the typical intent and
>>> disadvantaging the untypical.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with this entirely.
>>>
>>
>> Including the part where Allen is not convinced to add all these forms?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> ...But it felt useful to note that ||= would compliment || and
> immediately understood by devs
>
>
>
>>
>> I can see adding ?? and ??= (undefined-only, not undefined-or-null).
>>
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
>
>>
>> Is ||= really worth it? It would not assign if the left side is truthy,
>> but perhaps no one will mind.
>
>
> That makes complete sense to me, but again - it might not be worth
> adding, because a = b || c isn't that painful.
>
>
>>
>> Given ||= is there any oxygen left in the room for ??=?
>
>
> Right now, I believe the whole set compliment the current language and
> its operators nicely - but if it came down to one or the other, I would
> prefer seeing the new addition of ?? and ??=
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>>
>>
>> /be
>>
>>
>>> ||= is complementary to || and makes sense - developers will embrace
>>> this as is.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? and ??= seem like "something is unknown" and unknown things can
>>> otherwise be described as "undefined". Definitively, |null| is intentional
>>> -- which implies something "known" and therefore cannot qualify as
>>> "undefined". I think sticking to undefined will help to fix the abused "==
>>> null" patterns in extant code (I'm thinking in the long term of course)
>>>
>>> If null testing is needed:
>>>
>>> a = a != null ? a : default;
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing
> listes-discuss@mozilla.orghttps://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
> --
> jCore
> Email : avi...@jcore.fr
> Web : www.jcore.fr
> Webble : www.webble.it
> Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
> BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
