> Le 4 févr. 2016 à 21:03, Kevin Smith a écrit :
>
>
> That aside, I have a question about the semantics. What does this do:
>
> ({ x: 1 }).x?.y.z;
>
> Does it throw a ReferenceError?
>
Yes: the `?.` operator does not change the meaning of the subsequent `.`
On 2/3/16 11:39 PM, Bob Myers wrote:
Promise.resolve(42) . then(wait(1000)) . then( /* cb */);
With ES6 I prefer the straightforward:
var wait = ms => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));
Promise.resolve(42) . then(() => wait(1000)).then(() => { /* cb */ });
Too simple
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Claude Pache wrote:
>
> > Le 3 févr. 2016 à 20:56, John Lenz a écrit :
> >
> > Can you reference something as to why the more obvious operators are
> problematic?
> >
> > ?.
>
> That one (that I've used) must work,
Hello Claude, you prefer `?.` over `.?` as an implementor (I understand
what you said about the parsing). But I think as and end user of the
syntax, `.?` over `?.` makes more sense as it is easier to distinguish from
the ternary operator with a float, as in `x?.3:0` (we know a numerical key
can't
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Claude Pache
wrote:
>
> Le 4 févr. 2016 à 17:47, John Lenz a écrit :
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> Waldemar's example makes the problem obvious but I think we could do use,
> which I think is preferable to the proposed:
>
> .?
> Le 4 févr. 2016 à 17:47, John Lenz a écrit :
>
>
> [...]
>
> Waldemar's example makes the problem obvious but I think we could do use,
> which I think is preferable to the proposed:
>
> .?
> (?)
> [?]
Yes, that syntax is possible. Whether it is preferable is a
Thanks for putting this together. At first glance, I think the semantics
look pretty good. The syntax still seems problematic, though, from an
aesthetic point of view.
The `obj ?. prop` form looks natural and aligns well with how this feature
appears in other languages. The other forms are
7 matches
Mail list logo