2015-10-29 19:22 GMT+01:00 Laurentiu Macovei <alonec...@gmail.com>: > This would be amazing operator!! > > var error = a.b.c.d; //this would fail with error if a, b or c are null or > undefined. > var current = a && a.b && a.b.c && a.b.c.d; // the current messy way to > handle this > var typeScript = a?.b?.c?.d; // The typescript way of handling the above > mess with no errors > > However I propose a more clear one - as not to confuse ? from the a ? b : > c statements with a?.b statements: > > var x = a..b..c..d; //this would be ideal to understand that you assume > that if any of a, b, c is null or undefined the result will be null or > undefined. > > Two dots, means if its null or undefined stop processing further and > assume the result of expression is null or undefined. (as d would be null > or undefined). > > Two dots make it more clear, more visible and more space-wise so you > understand what's going on. > > What do you think folks? > > Do you also have a proposal on how to handle a["b"]["c"]["d"], so with possibly variable keys.
In any case, I think that the existential operator (whatever the exact sign used is) will be better then the current way of chaining &&. Regards, Sander
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
