Open
Conversation
Merged
Member
|
I think this needs to be simply updated to use |
I'd like to pick this up again. Can you please clarify? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
View Rendered Text
This PR depends on #204.
The draft extends from the
ChainingExpressionapproach proposed by the ESLint team. I choose this approach as it is more accessible the the other. I will work the other if we decide to use theOptionalCallExpressionapproach.Since
a~.b()and(a~.b)()have different semantics, we addeventual: booleantoChaininstead of(Member|Call)Expression. I think this PR can offer perspective on how our decision on #204 will affect other proposal designs.Note that although the examples contain
?~., it should be considered as an experiment of an indeed experimental proposal which has not supported optional chaining yet. Although the optional chaining support can be expected in the near future, I have added a clause thateventualandoptionalcannot be both true to align to current proposal.