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
Oh, that is completely different semantics. IMNSHO, it goes against DWIM.
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
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
