Give nullish coalescing lower precedence than logical OR. #40
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like everywhere in the spec that LogicalORExpression occurs requires an update, so it would be good to include them here, even if they're all just routine additions.
(Actually some of them should already be there, even if we don't don't add NullishExpression. 🤔)
|
Whew, okay, it's been updated. Similarly, #39 is also updated. |
spec.html
Outdated
| NullishExpression[In, Yield, Await] : | ||
| LogicalORExpression[?In, ?Yield, ?Await] | ||
| NullishExpression[?In, ?Yield, ?Await] `??` LogicalORExpression[?In, ?Yield, ?Await] | ||
| </ins> | ||
| </emu-grammar> | ||
| </emu-clause> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like these two tentative <emu-clause>s can be deleted if they're now incorporated into the context below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be fixed now both here and in #39.
|
@rkirsling @codehag @zenparsing, if you get the chance to review this after #42, that would be really great ❤️ |
|
This is a really nice change. I am also rooting for this one. |
|
I think this was voted down at committee. |
|
Oh well. My fingers are still crossed for reraising this as a future needs-consensus PR. 😁🤞 |
|
I hope I was able to present the argument for this change in a reasonable way. This didn't make it, but ultimately I'm glad that we were able to reach consensus for stage 3! I think the language really is no worse off, and at the very least, we are in a position to reevaluate at a later time if we believe it is. Thank you all very much for reviewing this change and making it possible to present both views. |
This allows us to have a PR ready to go if we decide that we just want
??to have lower precedence than||(rather than disallowing??from mixing with||as in #38 and #39).