David Bruant wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently
absorb any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
Ignoring exact syntax, I don't think we want more general throwing
suppression. The goal with existential operators is to suppress exactly
the TypeError thrown when trying to get properties from null or undefined.
Suppressing errors requires care, that's why ?. is not . (the default).
But even with opt-in, exceptional-circumstances syntax, we should prefer
a narrower semantics to an over-broad one that will, all else equal,
tend to hide bugs and fail to express precise programmer intention.
The other point I will make is that we should take the CoffeeScript user
testing results to heart, moreso than thought experiments. In this light
I invite all CS users to comment.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
