Existential operator (was: ||= is much needed?)

Herby Vojčík herby at mailbox.sk
Thu Jun 21 00:27:15 PDT 2012

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 overhead or memory / perf overhead? Because the latter is of 
little worries, common uses of foo.? like foo.?.bar can be of course 
shortcut without using [[NullPatternObject]] at all.


> kind of suffix-? or suffix-.? as you proposed it would be observable
> that you get a new object instead of short-circuiting to undefined --
> the new object is exposed in the language.
> /be

More information about the es-discuss mailing list