Syntactically marking, in a chain, what you'd like the final value of the chain to be, seems interesting - forcing optionality into it seems unnecessary, though, if such a syntactic marker could be attached to all forms of property access.
Something like: `a.b>.c.d` or `a?.b>?.c?.d` or `a>[b][c][d]`. (Obviously, the `>` won't work with bracket, and any syntax for normal properties that only applies to dot and not also bracket would somewhat be a nonstarter; but the specific syntax can be bikeshedded separately) On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:04 AM Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > Indeed I'm not super convinced myself about the "branching issue" 'cause > `const result = this?.is?.branching?.already` and all I am proposing is to > hint the syntax where to stop in case something else fails down the line, > as in `const result = this.?.is<?.branching?.too` to know that if any other > part is not reached, there is a certain point to keep going (which is, > example, checking that `result !== this`) > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:17 PM Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Typically, "dot" expressions navigate through values of different types, >> making "type branching" the inevitable next step in those cases (unless you >> introduce a common method for further processing for each of those types). >> So I'm not sure how ultimately that would be avoided. >> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 14:15, Claude Pache <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le 6 sept. 2019 à 14:35, Felipe Nascimento de Moura < >>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> Doesn't that bring risks to breaking the web? >>> >>> You seen, many, MANY servers running php have the "shot-tags" feature >>> enabled, in which pages with <? and ?> will be interpreted. >>> In this case, any html page with embedded scripts using this operator, >>> or event .js files when the server is configured to also run php in them, >>> will break. >>> >>> Or am I missing something here? >>> >>> [ ]s >>> >>> >>> Any future PHP file that incorporate that syntax will almost surely >>> refuse to compile on servers that has short-tags enabled, making the >>> problem evident before it produces something useful on the web. This may be >>> an issue, but this is not what “breaking the web” is intended to mean. >>> Existing, untouched content will not break. Carelessly updated content >>> might break, but that’s not fundamentally different from any other careless >>> update. >>> >>> (If anything else, it may convince people that having different >>> configuration settings w.r.t. short-tags in development environment and in >>> production environment, is a very bad idea...) >>> >>> —Claude >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
