It might be worthwhile keeping an eye on the C# language discussion on the same 
operator - http://roslyn.codeplex.com/discussions/540883

 

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of A Matías 
Quezada
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2014 7:56 PM
To: Claude Pache
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: The Existential Operator

 

I think the current use of this operator will only make sense if the operator 
interrupts the whole sentence so

 

    a?.b.c

Will be the same as

 

    a && a.b.c

 

And

 

    a?().b?.c?.d

 

Will be same as

 

    a && (x = a(), x.b && (x.b.c && x.b.c.d))




---

A. Matías Quezada

Senior Javascript Developer

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 

 

 

2014-05-20 11:31 GMT+02:00 Claude Pache <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >:

Le 20 mai 2014 à 05:50, Dmitry Soshnikov <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > a écrit :


> Hi,
>
> (I remember, I mentioned this couple of years ago, but not sure about whether 
> it was considered, etc)
>
> Will the "Existential Operator" for properly accessors be something 
> interesting to consider for ES7 spec? Currently CoffeeScript uses it well.
>
> ```js
> var street = user.address?.street;
> ```
>
> The `street` is either the value of the `user.address.street` if the 
> `address` property exists (or even if it's an object), or `null` / 
> `undefined` otherwise.
>
> This (roughly) to contrast to:
>
> ```js
> var street = user.address && user.address.street;
> ```
>
> (the chain can be longer in many cases).
>
> The same goes with methods:
>
> ```js
> var score = user.getPlan?().value?.score;
> ```
>
> If potentially it could be interesting for ES7, I'll be glad helping with the 
> proposal, grammar and algorithm (unless it was considered previously, and 
> decided that it's not for ES for some reason).
>
> P.S.: I tried to solve this issue using default values of destructuring 
> assignment, but it doesn't help actually.
>
> Dmitry

Question: What is the semantics of the following:

        a?.b.c

Is it the same thing as

        (a?.b).c
        (a && a.b).c

or the same thing as:

        a && a.b.c

(For the sake of the argument, just ignore the distinction between "falsy" and 
"null/undefined".)
If it is the second option, I fear that the semantics of the so-called 
"existential operator" is more complicated than just an "operator".

—Claude

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

 

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to