3 ms·

In aggregate this looks like a godsend, but there are some examples (like foo?.:method) that looks atrocious.

• Ciantic 4mo ago
  Yeah, "?." as safe navigation operator even in JS where it already exists is eye-sore. They could use some other single character instead of two characters. Question mark is already doing a lot with ternaries etc. Instead of obj?.:method?.(…) it would be like obj#:method#(…) Replace # with your favorite extra character instead of questionmark.
  • JBits 4mo ago
    Is there any reason why they're not considering a single '?' like rust? Is it a parsing issue? So you'd have: obj?:method(…)
    • orthoxerox 4mo ago
      Mike Pall wrote in the issue that it's easier to parse. If they get rid of the ternary operator, I'll ask him again to drop the period.
      • nmz 4mo ago
        a lone ? can mean anything, you can already tell that . is for fetching a subtable.
        • orthoxerox 4mo ago
          In C# it's not a lone ?, it's two operators: ?. and ?[ Lua could have ?. ?[ ?" ?{ and ?(
          • nmz 4mo ago
            I'd rather it use ?.() the . means getkey, () means expression using .(expr) should be the same as array[], throwing ? as a character should be very obvious what it does.