Default operator strawman - ||| rather than ??

[Brendan Eich]

Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:28 AM, T.J. Crowder<tj at crowdersoftware.com>  wrote:
>> Does anyone have an opinion on a second ternary a'la the above (syntax
>> notwithstanding). So far we have only my opinion (I like it and would have
>> uses for it; I don't _need_ it), Brendan's ("too thin")[1], and Herby's
>> ("wouldn't hurt")[2].
>
> Since you are asking for opinions.
>
> I don't want it. It doesn't carry its own weight.

If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.

But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if "wouldn't 
hurt" is the answer for syntax proposals. New syntax does hurt. It hurts 
by requiring a transpiler or full compiler to target old browsers. It 
hurts if it's botched, because you cannot polyfill to patch it. It costs 
inordinately compared to deferring and seeing if enough use-cases arise.

So the summary (sorry if it didn't do Herby's position justice; I'm 
using it as a whipping boy here) of "wouldn't hurt" is simply not an 
argument for new operators to shorten hard cases.

/be