T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 15 June 2012 07:42, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]
<mailto:[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?
Well, now that I think about it... whatever. I can live with both.
Though "trueish" !== undefined seems more natural to me (especially
inside if).
If the new syntax is clear that it's otherwise, it can be === undefined,
as well.
For example if (isnt foo) {...} (but this immediately suggest there can
be unary is as well... which is nice, there could be both).
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.
I know, I just sort-of included it to show I like it.
[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.
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
