Presumably you are using optional chaining here as you are expecting a or b to possibly be undefined or null? If this is not the case, you don't even need optional chaining and could simply use:
a
b
undefined
null
const sortComparer = (a, b) => ~~a.order - ~~b.order
Hey Jon, yes I am assuming the values to null or undefined, and that's the reason why I am using optional changing..
However, using your approach wouldn't ~~undefinded break the code ? 🤔
~~undefinded
As I said, ~~undefined gives 0
~~undefined
0
umm, interesting way.. never used it though, however not sure if this is the best practise or not..
Best practises should always be challenged and questioned
Agreed, there's always more then one to do the stuff, whatever works best !
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Presumably you are using optional chaining here as you are expecting
aorbto possibly beundefinedornull? If this is not the case, you don't even need optional chaining and could simply use:Hey Jon, yes I am assuming the values to null or undefined, and that's the reason why I am using optional changing..
However, using your approach wouldn't
~~undefindedbreak the code ? 🤔As I said,
~~undefinedgives0umm, interesting way.. never used it though, however not sure if this is the best practise or not..
Best practises should always be challenged and questioned
Agreed, there's always more then one to do the stuff, whatever works best !