On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote:
According to my previous posts I am quite convinced it has an interest, I
remain perplex regarding the use of ?( , then, I am really curious to see
CS's uses, could you please highlight some projects ?
Certainly.
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
into language, but all of CS-style soft-accesses could be solved very
cleanly and consistently.
No, because (a) the overhead of a new object is too high; (b) with any
kind of
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
into language, but all of CS-style soft-accesses could be solved very
cleanly and consistently.
No, because (a) the overhead of a new object is too high; (b) with any
Spec / impl
On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:22, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
into language, but all of CS-style soft-accesses could be solved very
cleanly and consistently.
No, because (a)
So do you have to do it by treating the ?. operator as a standalone?
Instead, could you do the indefinte soak part during parsing, treating
the rest of the expression differently after having seen a ?. operator?
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
John Tamplin wrote:
So do you have to do it by treating the ?. operator as a standalone?
Not sure what you mean here -- standalone ? (with an English-langauge
? implied after in your sentence? ;-)?
Or something else that amounts to a concealed Reference or
Nil-value-proxy expression?
Just
Brendan Eich wrote:
Thus foo?.bar.baz.quux is really (((foo?.bar).baz).quux).
So (as many have noted) parenthesization does not call GetValue in ECMA-262:
11.1.6 The Grouping Operator
The production PrimaryExpression : ( Expression ) is evaluated as follows:
1. Return the result of
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John Tamplin wrote:
So do you have to do it by treating the ?. operator as a standalone?
Not sure what you mean here -- standalone ? (with an English-langauge ?
implied after in your sentence? ;-)?
Or something else
John Tamplin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
John Tamplin wrote:
So do you have to do it by treating the ?. operator as a
standalone?
Not sure what you mean here -- standalone ? (with an
Brendan Eich wrote:
Replying to both Herby and Domenic here.
Domenic Denicola wrote:
On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:22, Herby Vojčíkhe...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
into language, but all of
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Adn that is precisely what I proposed under name
[[NullPatternObject]]. So all of (1), (3), (4) and (5) are void.
Apologies, I missed that and saw only someone (perhaps it was Domenic)
write ({}) as the default value, which is not the same.
Such a Nil proxy still cannot
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Adn that is precisely what I proposed under name
[[NullPatternObject]]. So all of (1), (3), (4) and (5) are void.
Apologies, I missed that and saw only someone (perhaps it was Domenic)
write ({}) as the default value, which is not the same.
Such a
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That I cannot envision... but Null Pattern object that produces itself
for all operations ([[Get]], [[Call]], ...) should not be problematic.
You might be surprised (I am) by how seemingly innocent things can
become problematic.
Just on aesthetic grounds, I bet TC39ers
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That I cannot envision... but Null Pattern object that produces itself
for all operations ([[Get]], [[Call]], ...) should not be problematic.
You might be surprised (I am) by how seemingly innocent things can
become problematic.
Just on aesthetic
I guess the grep work is not easy to do, but I have tried (manually) to
find ?. or ?( in coffee script projects, trying to seek into projects of
main contributors.
Maybe not lucky or not really aware of the most popular projects, but I
did not find any up to now.
According to my previous
On Jun 20, 2012, at 7:18 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas jashke...@gmail.com wrote:
Allen asks about when you would want to write `foo?.bar()`
... the only use case I can think of is when `foo` may or may not be defined,
and you know that if it
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I was hypothesizing that Brendan's semantics would seldom be the
programer's intent for person?.getName() . If an exception was
acceptable, why wouldn't you just say:
Because it's rare to have a maybe-method called on a maybe-object, based
on CoffeeScript experience
On Jun 20, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I was hypothesizing that Brendan's semantics would seldom be the programer's
intent for person?.getName() . If an exception was acceptable, why wouldn't
you just say:
Because it's rare to have a maybe-method
Brendan Eich wrote:
Let's look at what CoffeeScript requires to avoid this exception:
$ cat /tmp/z.coffee
person = {}
person?.getName?()
$ ./bin/coffee -p /tmp/z.coffee
(function() {
var person;
person = {};
if (person != null) {
if (typeof person.getName === function) {
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
yes, that's what I was proposing. I think calls need to be part of the overall
discussion for this feature area.
Jeremy is kindly grepping more codebases, but just from CoffeeScript
(self-hosted) source itself, ?. is 42, ?[ is 7, and ?( is 3 -- so
12:2:1. Supports
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
yes, but in a static Java-like language such as for you example above, the
existence of person implies the existence of the getName method. The JS
equivalent would likely be something like:
Is it really rare to
Brendan Eich wrote:
This is infelicitous compared to putting ? first because it separates
the ? from the maybe-nully left operand too much, and looks ugly (to
Spanish readers it looks even more wrong).
It's also a loss to deviate from CS, but we can't do ?( so we're half
(or 1/14th by the
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
yes, that's what I was proposing. I think calls need to be part of the
overall discussion for this feature area.
Jeremy is kindly grepping more codebases, but just from CoffeeScript
(self-hosted) source itself, ?. is 42, ?[ is 7, and ?( is 3 --
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Let's allow foo.? to denote soft foo, so you get:
foo.?.bar// foo == null ? undefined : foo.bar
foo.?(bar)// foo == null ? undefined : foo(bar)
foo.?[bar]// foo == null ? undefined : foo[bar]
?. works as well for these and the main (by use-frequency, so far)
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Let's allow foo.? to denote soft foo, so you get:
foo.?.bar // foo == null ? undefined : foo.bar
foo.?(bar) // foo == null ? undefined : foo(bar)
foo.?[bar] // foo == null ? undefined : foo[bar]
?. works as well for these and the main (by
Herby Vojčík wrote:
I feel there is objection to introduce magical [[NullPatternObject]]
into language, but all of CS-style soft-accesses could be solved very
cleanly and consistently.
No, because (a) the overhead of a new object is too high; (b) with any
kind of suffix-? or suffix-.? as you
As requested, running those rough greps again on the top ten most popular
CoffeeScript repos on Github yields:
188 uses of object?.property
32 uses of object?[key]
50 uses of function?(args)
46 uses of variable ?= value
... and the other ones are a bit tricker to grep for. There are at least
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default operator
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by
adding syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.|
for getting and setting a property from a reference base that might be
|undefined| or
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb
any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
The semantic would be exactly the same.
The syntax is up to debate. Specifically, it would be nice to be able to
As there is no keyword as 'or' so far, does something like *x = x.value or
5 *sound better?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb
any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default operator
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by adding
syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.| for getting
and setting a
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
This proposal augments the default
operatorhttp://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator by adding
syntax to avoid accessing a missing property, specifically |?.| for
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:30 AM, David Bruant wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently absorb any
error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
A hazard with this approach is that it could silence a
David Bruant wrote:
What about a more generic operator that would be able to silently
absorb any error?
let greedy = obj.hints?.greedy;
would become:
let greedy = silent obj.hints.greedy;
Ignoring exact syntax, I don't think we want more general throwing
suppression. The goal with
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address the more
important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar means take bar from foo or undefined if foo == null.
foo?.bar() means take bar
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address
the more important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar means take bar from foo or undefined if foo == null.
Sorry -- an old inbox filter caused me to miss this...
There were a couple of questions asked in the thread, but I think it might
be helpful to summarize the overall rationale first.
The existential operator in CoffeeScript (?) is intended to make it easier
to ask questions about whether values
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let == be equivalence for a program fragment, and != be
inequivalence. Then we have in JS today extended with do expressions
(and gensym via $tmp):
foo.bar() == do {let $tmp = foo.bar; $tmp.call(foo)}
Now
Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
... or it leaks maybe-Reference type values into the language.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
Everywhere else in the language, `?` means existence (not null or
undefined) -- but when used to call a function, the check ensures that
the value is callable as well. In a DWIM sense, this makes sense,
because the only things you'd ever want to try to call in
Ashkenas
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: Existential operator (was: ||= is much needed?)
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
Everywhere else in the language, `?` means existence (not null or
undefined) -- but when used to call a function, the check ensures that
the value is callable as well. In a DWIM sense
Brendan Eich wrote:
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
Everywhere else in the language, `?` means existence (not null or
undefined) -- but when used to call a function, the check ensures that
the value is callable as well. In a DWIM sense, this makes sense,
because the only things you'd ever want to try
That's possible but it is a bit ugly, isn't it?
Also, as dherman observed, ?. and variations are different from
defaulting, in one point of view. That is, avoiding dereferencing a
value that does not coerce to object is the purpose of ?. but not
necessarily of ??= (or || as used for
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
(spelling it ?[ would be hard in CS too, due to array literals). Could
add it in the future, trying not to overdo the strawman at this point.
YAGNI and
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
(spelling it ?[ would be hard in CS too, due to array literals). Could add
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I still stand by my alternative semantics as being a way to address the
more important use case without have ?()
No, the basis cases differ and that is a bug in your alternative.
foo?.bar
Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Will you include options.success?.[index] then, too?
I wasn't planning on it. CoffeeScript does not have any such thing
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I don't agree, probably because I'm look at ?. as an operator that evaluates to
a special kind of Reference.
That your alternative off-by-one in its basis case is bad enough -- it
creates two error suppression points from one syntactic extension-point,
it will hide
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let == be equivalence for a program fragment, and != be inequivalence.
Then we have in JS today extended with do expressions (and gensym via $tmp):
Brendan Eich wrote:
Worse, instead of leaking an observable ConditionalReference (whew!),
you've opted to break the equivalence between foo.bar() and %tmp =
foo.bar; %tmp.call(foo) for the case where . is replaced by ?. -- in
this case your proposal does not throw while the expansion does.
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Worse, instead of leaking an observable ConditionalReference (whew!), you've
opted to break the equivalence between foo.bar() and %tmp = foo.bar;
%tmp.call(foo) for the case where . is replaced by ?. -- in this case your
Is it possible to do something like
foo.bar?:(foo, args)
Basically a ternary that allows an empty component, and can tell the future
(whether the other result is callable)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
foo.bar?(args) == foo.bar?.call(foo, args)
fun?(args) == fun?.call(undefined, args)
How are these equivalent? Won't fun?.call evaluate to undefined if fun is
undefined and undefined(undefined,args) will
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
foo.bar?(args) == foo.bar?.call(foo, args)
fun?(args) == fun?.call(undefined, args)
How are these equivalent? Won't fun?.call evaluate to
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
Ah, interesting...so this is actually close to what I was advocating for
this particular case. However, if I now understand correctly you are
saying that
fun?.call()
produces undefined if fun is
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
...
Ha ha, loose equality strikes again! It's actually guarding for both null and
undefined. It's the only place that CoffeeScript purposefully uses the
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Another problem with your alternative: either it breaks a refactoring
equivalence.
Let== be equivalence for a program fragment, and!= be inequivalence. Then
we have in JS today extended with do expressions (and
Indeed I did not spec this in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:existential_operator#semantics
-- one step at a time. Also I'm not sure how the indefinite soak will
fly with others on TC39.
Allen, I agree if we do make a soak and don't spec it as CoffeeScript
realizes it (by
Complement for my last sentence : if you are using ?. it means that you
don't know if the thing does exist, then you are probably waiting for it
to exist (asynchronous environments for example), then once you get it,
it is very unlikely that you call it right away, I would like to see
some
Yes, we could make ?? and ??= do the same for null as for undefined. I'm
not sure that's
the right choice, but it's a choice.
Introducing yet another way to think about values in ES is not going to
help most programmers. We already have to think about thinks like
undefined and falsey -- what's
This is related to what I was trying to figure out in the more fun with
undefined thread, maybe it is wrong or have too many impact but I was
about to suggest :
8.9.1 GetValue (V)
...
5. If IsUnresolvableReference(V), return undefined
11.2.1 Property Accessors
Runtime Semantics: Evaluation
Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Why not, instead of adding ? operator ?
You mean ?. here, I assume.
The answer is because what you propose is an incompatible change to
ECMA-262 (all editions) and JS back to its birth, which lets programs
that throw currently continue to run, with possibly disastrous
OK, ?. is enough and good
Le 18/06/2012 16:48, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Why not, instead of adding ? operator ?
You mean ?. here, I assume.
The answer is because what you propose is an incompatible change to
ECMA-262 (all editions) and JS back to its birth, which lets
This proposal augments the default operator by adding syntax to avoid
accessing a missing property, specifically ?. for getting and setting a
property from a reference base that might be undefined or null: [1]
The specified semantics of proposal actually does more than avoid accessing a
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:57 PM, satyr wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As for null, I can see how there's confusion about whether to use null vs
undefined, and so I can see why CoffeeScript would just try to blur the
distinction between them.
David Herman wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:57 PM, satyr wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
mailto:dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As for null, I can see how there's confusion about whether to use
null vs undefined, and so I can see why CoffeeScript
Sorry, meant to start a new thread for:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:existential_operator
As the Syntax section hints, we can't also adopt CoffeeScript's ?(
variant, which enables foo.bar?(args, go, here).baz and the like. The C
syntax heritage prevails.
/be
Brendan Eich
Yes, what I mean is that I did not see since a long time something like
a===null?b:c or if (a===null)||b, and except for specific use like
Object.create(null) I don't see a lot of null being used, then making
the distinction for ??, ?: and others looks too subtle
Le 15/06/2012 04:20, Brendan
On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I can see adding ?? and ??= (undefined-only, not undefined-or-null).
I think ?? is the highest priority.
Is ||= really worth it? It would not assign if the left side is truthy, but
perhaps no one will mind.
Given ||= is there any oxygen
David Herman wrote:
So I favor ?? as well as both ||= and ??=.
As for null, I can see how there's confusion about whether to use null vs undefined, and
so I can see why CoffeeScript would just try to blur the distinction between them. But I
think by sticking to the simpler semantics it will
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:33 PM, David Herman wrote:
So I favor ?? as well as both ||= and ??=.
Adding ||= and ??= without = will cause my symmetry-reflex to twitch, despite
not seeing a purpose for it I may find it hard to resist supporting that too.
;-)
G.
satyr wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:33 AM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com
mailto:dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
As for null, I can see how there's confusion about whether to use
null vs undefined, and so I can see why CoffeeScript would just
try to blur the distinction between
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Can you give a real-world example where null rather than undefined is
soaked up? I'm guessing DOM but guessing is bad (cf. Sherlock Holmes).
Wouldn't any case where you return null to mean explicitly no object be
such a
Maybe, probably, of course ;-).
I'm still looking for real-world use-cases, code that actually exists
(in CoffeeScript or JS) that needs to soak up null-or-undefined, not
just undefined.
/be
John Tamplin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
Confusion: at no point has the
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:default_operator
strawman removed the infix operator originally proposed as ?? and
currently spelled ?: -- everyone agrees on having both OP and OP=,
whatever the spelling of OP.
I agree on reflection with Wes
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On semantics: CoffeeScript's use of != null to equate null and undefined
matches some users' habits, and helps to conceal the awkward fact of two
bottom-types in JS (@jashkenas just averred that was the goal). But such
concealment can
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 14 June 2012 18:10, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
I agree on reflection with Wes and others who've objected that A
?: B has the simplest interpretation as A ? A : B and therefore
should not be used for anything like (A !==
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
While I'm less than enthusiastic about explicitly provided undefined values
triggering default value usages, I don't think it is particularly harmful. I
think treating null equivalently would be.
Noted, but you have not responded to the argument, made by Sam
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
While I'm less than enthusiastic about explicitly provided undefined
values triggering default value usages, I don't think it is
particularly harmful. I think treating null equivalently would be.
Noted, but you have not responded to the argument,
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
While I'm less than enthusiastic about explicitly provided undefined
values triggering default value usages, I don't think it is
particularly harmful. I think treating null equivalently would be.
Noted, but you have not
On 14 June 2012 19:01, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The users who want null to be distinct from undefined are neither
CoffeeScript users, nor || users (in their defaulting code). They must be
doing === undefined test.
Not quite. I use || whenever I can in my defaulting code, and I
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
We have a problem with || indeed. The question is whether the solution
should equate null and undefined. CoffeeScript chose the
conceal-the-difference path and it has users. The users who want null to be
distinct from
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
We have a problem with || indeed. The question is whether the solution
should equate null and undefined. CoffeeScript chose the
conceal-the-difference path and it has users. The users who want null
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 14 June 2012 19:01, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The users who want null to be distinct from undefined are neither
CoffeeScript users, nor || users (in their defaulting code). They
must be doing === undefined test.
Not
On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
...
We have a problem with || indeed. The question is whether the solution should
equate null and undefined. CoffeeScript chose the conceal-the-difference path
and it has users. The users who want null to be distinct from undefined are
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
snip
I guess my concern is that there are significant existing subsystems where
null is distinguished from undefined or where null has a specifically
defined meaning that does not apply to undefined. For
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
I realize that the strawman currently spells it ?:, consider this
message an opposition to that.
This has been an extension to C for quite some time, and it means
specifically to use the condition value if it is truthy
Rick Waldron wrote:
One way to have it both ways is to have multiple syntactic forms
for default value initializers. EG:
function f(a = 1, b ??= 2, c ||= 3) { } //assuming ??= is
undefined or null defaulting guard and ||= is falsy
I'm not particularly convinced that the
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:32 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.comwrote:
Is ||= really worth it? It would not assign if the left side is truthy,
but perhaps no one will mind.
Nice-to-have. The fact it doesn't assign if the left side is truthy is the
only reason for having it, surely?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote:
This discussion I think is going into a useless complexity.
Nobody (except w3c) is using null, or when someone is using it, it is the
same way as undefined, and it is not explicit (ie a||b or a==b, not
a===null), I
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody (except w3c) is using null, or when someone is using it, it is the
same way as undefined, and it is not explicit (ie a||b or a==b, not
a===null), I remind some old code where we could see the use of null but can
Just clarifying -- we all agree that any such thing is too late for
ES6, right? On this assumption, I'm postponing engaging in this thread
until I have time.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Yes, I'm about to bail back to ??.
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
Before...
I put Rick's answer below too, in strict/correct code it can be used but
what examples (except yours) ?
Maybe I missed it, never saw the use of null since a long time, but I
can be wrong
Do you think it does worth the complexity for the operators we are
talking about ? w3c is
Just to be clear I am talking about the use of null in the scope of the
current discussion (ie operators/default) only
Le 15/06/2012 01:37, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
Before...
I put Rick's answer below too, in strict/correct code it can be used
but what examples (except yours) ?
Maybe I
I don't think it matters yet, this is fair game for es-discuss as a harmony
strawman.
But it does connect to parameter default values, where we have open issues that
come up here too. Worth skimming IMHO.
/be
On Jun 14, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Just
On 13 June 2012 06:52, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
People don't default on the caller side (at the callsite) much, in my
experience. Dave may be seeing other sources, but it's extremely rare in my
experience to see
I'm with Dave on this, I do it fairly regularly, usually when a
Indeed, maybe both should be included.
What about this case :
if (typeof(api)==undefined) {try later} else if (!api.a) {try later}
else if (!api.a.b)) {try later} else if (etc...)
which can be written : if
(!(((typeof(api)!=undefined?api.a:undefined)?api.a.b:undefined)?api.a.b.c:undefined))
On 13 June 2012 03:45, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Is the reason for using ?: rather than ?? because we may want it for my
desired second ternary? E.g., from my other message:
Something else to consider; if we use (a ?: b), it would have to be
equivalent to (a ? a : b) with
Typo below, I meant which can be written : if
(!(((typeof(api)!=undefined??api.a:undefined)??api.a.b:undefined)??api.a.b.c:undefined))
{try later}
Le 13/06/2012 12:12, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
Indeed, maybe both should be included.
What about this case :
if (typeof(api)==undefined) {try
On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
People don't default on the caller side (at the callsite) much, in my
experience. Dave may be seeing other sources, but it's extremely rare in my
experience to see
foo(arg1 || callers_idea_of_default_arg1_value);
I'm sure it's more rare
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
