Issue #11816 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.

Description updated

Tsuyoshi Sawada wrote:
> Does this conflict with the current syntax?

Yes.

```ruby
proc{|x|p x}&.(1) #=> 1
```

> Or, if `bar` above is confusing (to human) with a local variable, then another option may be:
> 
> ~~~ruby
> foo&(.bar.baz)
> ~~~

Is `&(.` a single token?


----------------------------------------
Bug #11816: Partial safe navigation operator
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11816#change-57985

* Author: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
* ruby -v: preview 2
* Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I'm extremely surprised (and disappointed) that, currently:

```ruby
x = nil
x&.foo.bar # => NoMethodError: undefined method `bar' for nil:NilClass
```

To make it safe, you have to write `x&.foo&.bar`. But if `foo` is never supposed to return `nil`, then that code isn't "fail early" in case it actually does. `nil&.foo.bar` is more expressive, simpler and is perfect if you want to an error if `foo` returned `nil`. To actually get what you want, you have to resort using the old form `x && x.foo.bar`...

In CoffeeScript, you can write `x()?.foo.bar` and it will work well, since it gets compiled to

```js
if ((_ref = x()) != null) {
  _ref.foo.bar;
}
```

All the discussion in #11537 focuses on `x&.foo&.bar`, so I have to ask:

Matz, what is your understanding of `x&.foo.bar`?

I feel the current implementation is not useful and should be changed to what I had in mind. I can't see any legitimate use of `x&.foo.bar` currently.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>