More fun with undefined

T.J. Crowder tj at crowdersoftware.com
Fri Jun 15 00:00:31 PDT 2012


On 15 June 2012 07:42, Herby Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk> wrote:

>
>
> T.J. Crowder wrote:
>
>> Making a point of making this a separate thread from the current ?? and
>> ??= thread(s), which are thankfully looking close to consensus. So
>> that's infix and assignment.
>>
>> Question: Should we consider unary as well?
>>
>
> I also thought in these lines. What I came up is this:
>
> (foo??)         // (foo !== undefined)
> foo??bar        // (foo !== undefined) ? foo : bar aka foo ?? foo : bar
>
> that is, allow ?? also without the operand, but then only at the end of
> (sub)expression
>

Again, let's consider whether the semantics are worth it before we get into
synxtax. I take it you're in favor of something?


> P.S.: foo??bar:baz wouldn't hurt either, to complete the triad.
>

I've suggested that a couple of times.[1][2] Brendan said he thought it was
"too thin."[3] AFAIK no one else has weighed in on the subject.

[1] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023356.html
[2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023465.html
[3] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023468.html

-- T.J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120615/c426d237/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list