it doesn't have to be a bug. It asserts that if a is not null/undefined, it must have a property b. This can be enforced through static typing.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Nick Krempel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7 April 2015 at 18:03, Nick Krempel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 6 April 2015 at 20:01, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If I want the short circuit in option 1, I'd do `a?.b?.c` to indicate >>> that, whereas in option 2 if I don't want the short circuit, I'm forced to >>> use separate variables. >> >> >> Worth noting that an option 1 `a?.b?.c` differs from an option 2 `a?.b.c` >> in that the latter is effectively asserting that if a != null then its b >> property is also != null, whereas the former is more lenient in what it >> accepts. >> >> Also you are not forced to use separate variables in option 2, you can >> just use parentheses: `(a?.b).c` - hence the whole discussion of lack of >> transitivity (more correctly, associativity) for option 2. Or did I >> misunderstand what you're trying to achieve? > > > ...but thinking about it further, wouldn't you always want the short circuit > semantics? i.e. an option 1 `a?.b.c` is almost certainly a bug? > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Christoph Pojer http://cpojer.net _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
