Yup, it kinda sucks, but is preferable to return undefined for something that isn't defined ... you can still check if a variable exists before trying to access it, by using typeof:
But that's the thing, they aren't the same thing. One is trying to access something not declared in the scope, while the other is trying to access a property of something that is declared in the scope. You can test both with typeof === "undefined", but if you try to access something undeclared you get an error, which sucks, but that's how it works. Nowadays is very difficult to end up in this scenario tho, because editors will let you know if you're trying to access an undeclared value.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
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.
Btw it’s fun when
Yup, it kinda sucks, but is preferable to return
undefinedfor something that isn't defined ... you can still check if a variable exists before trying to access it, by usingtypeof:Accessing properties is a better DX, and with
?.and??is even better:I’m not talking about the check. I’m just trying to point the inconsistency between two cases about the same thing.
But that's the thing, they aren't the same thing. One is trying to access something not declared in the scope, while the other is trying to access a property of something that is declared in the scope. You can test both with
typeof === "undefined", but if you try to access something undeclared you get an error, which sucks, but that's how it works. Nowadays is very difficult to end up in this scenario tho, because editors will let you know if you're trying to access an undeclared value.