I do like the idea of `??`, I only wanted to point out that sticking to `x !== null && x !== undefined` is not needed. After all, `null == undefined` only to each other. The rules of soft comparison are known and won’t be changed, so let’s take advantage of them while awaiting for `??`.Od: "Naveen Chawla" <[email protected]>Do: "Michael Rosefield" <[email protected]>; Wysłane: 15:36 Czwartek 2017-12-21Temat: Re: %20Re%3A%20Looking%20for%20Champion%3A%20Null%20Coalescing%20%28%3F%3F%29%20and%20Null%20Conditional%0A%09Member%20Access%20%28%3F.%29%20operators&In-Reply-To=%3CCAAuY5VfQ7bDx%3D3LVPsNf78jbDFHqYkK%2BQgMui9EgsqQOSQ0%3DKw%40mail.gmail.com%3ETypically `||` is sufficient. Yes if you want to allow empty strings and/or 0, you would need to add checks for those to the left of the `||`, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing to require in JavaScript.The nullish conditional operator, however ( `?.` and `?[`) , I think is a bigger addition to the language.On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 at 18:05 Michael Rosefield <[email protected]> wrote:Yes, but that conflates falsey values; `??` *should* be about recognising whether values *exist*, not whether they are *truthy*.On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 at 12:20 Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> wrote:I prefer `u || 0`On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 at 13:56 Sebastian Cholewa <[email protected]> wrote: It’s still longer than `??` but instead of:`(u !== undefined && u !== null) ? u : 0`one can use:`u != null ? u : 0` _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
