Revert previous spec alterations #75
Conversation
This reverts commit 6805300.
Does this include the token? |
|
@mAAdhaTTah That includes the proposed token. Not all like it, but we agree it's the best of the presented options and it will not be blocked on that when seeking stage advancement. |
|
@dustinsavery, that's fantastic! Thank you for advocating for this. Does that breakout section, and the spec as it will now stand, make you fully optimistic about the March conference Stage 2 proposal? |
|
I'm pretty optimistic now, yes! But given the history, I'm also cautious. People could forget why they were in support of it in 4 months 😄 |
|
@dustinsavery Could I ask what's the proposed tokens now? |
|
@hax Just look at the "Files changed" tab. It's being restored to the original proposal: obj?.prop // optional static property access
obj?.[expr] // optional dynamic property access
func?.(...args) // optional function or method call(I'm pretty happy with this one; it's overwhelmingly the most popular option, and the only option that had a positive vote total in the poll.) |
[Optional chaining](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining) allows to chain potentially null components. Instead of doing ``` if (window && window.location && window.location.protocol) { ssl = window.location.protocol } ``` we could do ``` ssl = window?.location?.protocol ``` The spec is stage 1 only but [they seem to have reach consensus](tc39/proposal-optional-chaining#75 (comment)) and [the formal stage 2 decision should be in March](tc39/proposal-optional-chaining#76 (comment)) There should not be any compatibility break
[Optional chaining](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining) allows to chain potentially null components. Instead of doing ``` if (window && window.location && window.location.protocol) { ssl = window.location.protocol } ``` we could do ``` ssl = window?.location?.protocol ``` The spec is stage 1 only but [they seem to have reach consensus](tc39/proposal-optional-chaining#75 (comment)) and [the formal stage 2 decision should be in March](tc39/proposal-optional-chaining#76 (comment)) There should not be any compatibility break
Based on a breakout session and laying out all aspects of this proposal, I believe we have reached a positive conclusion and have broad agreement on the entirety of this proposal.