How fixed is this syntax? Because while it's in draft and there is still a possibility of changing it: this is quite painful syntax, a keyword that turns an entire statement into a "is allowed to fail due to 'X does not exist' errors" would be so much nicer to work with. For instance, ... if exists [else ...] would allow for pleasant to read, easy to type expressions such as let value = ... if exist and if (... if exists else Number.MAX_VALUE > 2). This would be so much better, and would still be guaranteed to not conflict with existing code (since if cannot be followed by anything except ( right now), and can be trivially dealt with by transpilers for targeting legacy systems.
Software Developer who works mostly on Web stuff. I like JS, but I also like other things. I also do photography, and look at sneakers online that I will never be able to buy.
While the exact syntax is not written in stone yet (in fact, it's subject of much debate) I'd say it's not fixed at all. However, what you're describing seems to be a different feature that fixes a different problem.
They may have some overlap in the sense that they try to change how we act on null or undefined references, but they both approach it in very different ways.
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.
How fixed is this syntax? Because while it's in draft and there is still a possibility of changing it: this is quite painful syntax, a keyword that turns an entire statement into a "is allowed to fail due to 'X does not exist' errors" would be so much nicer to work with. For instance,
... if exists [else ...]would allow for pleasant to read, easy to type expressions such aslet value = ... if existandif (... if exists else Number.MAX_VALUE > 2). This would be so much better, and would still be guaranteed to not conflict with existing code (sinceifcannot be followed by anything except(right now), and can be trivially dealt with by transpilers for targeting legacy systems.While the exact syntax is not written in stone yet (in fact, it's subject of much debate) I'd say it's not fixed at all. However, what you're describing seems to be a different feature that fixes a different problem.
They may have some overlap in the sense that they try to change how we act on null or undefined references, but they both approach it in very different ways.