Issue #12263 has been updated by Matthew Kerwin.


Robert A. Heiler wrote:
> I also have to admit that I find "x && y" easier to understand than
> "x&&.y".

But one could argue that the following, which is semantically equivalent to the proposed `&&.`, is harder to understand:

~~~ruby
(tmp = x) && tmp.y
~~~

The only question I have is whether it really has enough utility to warrant adding it as a language construct. (And what of the precedent: will `|.` and `||.` be proposed next?)

----------------------------------------
Feature #12263: Feature request: &&. operator (shorthand for foo && foo.method)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12263#change-57989

* Author: Johnny Shields
* Status: Feedback
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
----------------------------------------
Ruby 2.3 introduced the `&.` safe-navigation operator. I'd like to propose a `&&.` operator which would be shorthand for:

~~~ruby
foo && foo.method
~~~

Unlike `&.`, this does not continue the chain if the variable evaluates to `false`. This would give the following result:

~~~ruby
false&.class       # => FalseClass
false&&.class      # => false

false&.inexisting  # => raises NoMethodError
false&&.inexisting # => false
~~~



-- 
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>