On 15 June 2012 07:42, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote: > > > T.J. Crowder wrote: > >> Making a point of making this a separate thread from the current ?? and >> ??= thread(s), which are thankfully looking close to consensus. So >> that's infix and assignment. >> >> Question: Should we consider unary as well? >> > > I also thought in these lines. What I came up is this: > > (foo??) // (foo !== undefined) > foo??bar // (foo !== undefined) ? foo : bar aka foo ?? foo : bar > > that is, allow ?? also without the operand, but then only at the end of > (sub)expression >
Again, let's consider whether the semantics are worth it before we get into synxtax. I take it you're in favor of something? > P.S.: foo??bar:baz wouldn't hurt either, to complete the triad. > I've suggested that a couple of times.[1][2] Brendan said he thought it was "too thin."[3] AFAIK no one else has weighed in on the subject. [1] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023356.html [2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023465.html [3] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023468.html -- T.J.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
