Nathan Wall wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Now I am confused.
For (p.q?).r to be same as p.q?.r, (p.q?) must return reified Nil, not
undefined. I was at the impression you say "Nil at the background, but
whenever it becomes observable, it should be changed to undefined".
That means p.q? returns undefined, and (p.q?).r fails.
Obviously I don't want these different parenthesizations to fail. I
believe we can spec the semantics such that InternalNil, just like
ES1-6's Reference type, is not observable.
What happens in more complicated expressions?
let foo, bar = (foo = p.q?).r;
That depends, among other things, on whether ?. is one new lexeme or two!
IOW, you shouldn't assume that ?. in the expression language means ?
(suffix-?) is in the expression language.
Of course, we could do all three of nil, ? and ?. as Herby wants. That
is ES7 for sure and it ties things up in a bow. But is nil really worth
it, never mind suffix-? in expressions?
It would be strange to me if `foo === undefined&& bar === undefined`. Herby's proposal
that `foo === nil&& bar === nil` makes more sense.
Given nil and the ability to write suffix-? inside parens, and dot
after, I agree.
Not sold on tying ?. to -? and nil yet, tho!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
