Christoph Pojer wrote:
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.
What do you mean? JS does not have static typing. Even if it got it via SoundScript, the new mode would be an opt-in. The default and vast majority of JS, which might like to use ?. (or whatever the syntax should be), could not rely on types.
Kevin's suggestion is that we solve the non-compositional CoffeeScript-like translation problem by converting null-ish (null or undefined) left operand of ?. (I'll use that syntax for now as it is familiar) to the Nil (h/t bbenvie) value proxy, which soaks up further property accesses by returning itself, and soaks up calls too.
As a sketch of semantics, this seems promising (no appeal to static typing) but I'm low on caffeine at the moment. What am I missing?
/be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
