Optional Chaining (reach Stage 2)

[nodkz]

@dustinsavery I hope that you don't forget your promise about Optional Chaining:

microsoft/TypeScript#30167 (comment)

I will be seeking Stage 2 for Optional Chaining at the next TC-39 meetup in March which, based on the outlook coming out of our November meetup, it should reach.

I will pray for Stage-2 😉

[dusave]

@nodkz Due to circumstances out of my control, I just found out a few days ago that I won't be able to make this meeting to seek advancement. Trust me when I say, no one is more disappointed than me.

[hax]

@dustinsavery So maybe May?

[DanielRosenwasser]

Is there any way that I would be able to help or present at this meeting? If you need, you can ping me on Twitter or email me at myCapitalizedFirstName dot myCapitalizedLastName at microsoft dot com.

[ljharb]

(Note that the deadline has now passed for proposals seeking advancement to be added to the agenda; a presentation would be great, but anyone would be able to block advancement solely on the basis of the deadline)

[jridgewell]

👋 Dustin has contacted me to take over as champion for this proposal. I’m afraid I didn’t have time to prepare a presentation for this meeting, but I plan to go for stage advancement at the next (and will talk to anyone at this meeting).

[ericketts]

that is very very exciting to hear @jridgewell I look forward to hearing what progress is made -- this feature is one that I took for granted for a long time working in a .net shop, and boy has it (sometimes) gotten painful in JS world to accomplish the same! a big heartfelt "thank you" to all who have been involved with championing this addition! 🖤

edit: also what a beautiful thing to see 2 devs employed by microsoft and google tag teaming an issue, amazing how far we've come in a few relatively short decades.

[jrista]

Really hoping for advancement to Stage 2 for this proposal. Of all the ones currently out there, this is by far the one I would use most frequently. ;)

Best of luck, guys!

[DespertaWeb]

Optional Chaining Operator should be a must in JS, it's just a TIMESAVER!

Go for it guys! 👍 🚀

[jackkoppa]

Awesome to see it scheduled, @jridgewell! Best of luck 🤞
https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2019/06.md#agenda-items

[Mouvedia]

What's being presented is not consistent—as explained many times already in other issues—hence it shouldn't reach stage 2. The only thing agreed upon by the majority is ?. and sadly/obviously most users reckon it's not enough: the bracket pendant must be introduced at the same time.

I understand that not everyone has the time and dedication so follow all the issues.
Therefor I propose to have all the obvious CONs of the current proposal to be listed in the README so that people can make up their mind easily.

[jrista]

@Mouvedia What other option could we possibly go with that would meet all the necessary criteria, including compiler performance, that would be consistent? Hasn't this been hashed into oblivion already? When your options are limited, consistent or not, you pick the least of all evils...no?

[ljharb]

@jrista don't forget tho, that the least of all evils is often "do nothing".

[jrista]

Perhaps...not sure that is the case here. I think the proposed ?. is still significantly better and far less tedious than chaining falsy checks (sometimes numerous properties deep, or even more complex solutions to the problem) like we have to do now, which would be the "do nothing" option. The do nothing option has existing syntactical issues as well...

[samhh]

I believe someone on the TypeScript team says this has reached stage 2 today, can anyone else confirm?

[ljharb]

You can check the closest thing there is to a source of truth: tc39/proposals@effb785

[claudepache]

This issue is now resolved; see the tc39/proposals@effb785 and PR #87.