3 ms·

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. Que

by Ciantic 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
    a lone ? can mean anything, you can already tell that . is for fetching a subtable.
    - orthoxerox 3mo ago
      In C# it's not a lone ?, it's two operators: ?. and ?[ Lua could have ?. ?[ ?" ?{ and ?(
      - nmz 3mo 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.