Issue #12263 has been updated by Daniel Ferreira.


Hi Matz,

I tend to still use this kind of code in some scenarios, specially when I work with objects with dynamic interfaces or arguments with different possible object types.

~~~ ruby
class Foo
   def bar(baz)
       if baz.respond_to?(:qux)
          return baz.qux
       end
       'whatever'
   end
end
~~~

Maybe the proposed `&&.` operator would be a good case scenario for this situations acting like `Hash#fetch` this way:

~~~ ruby
class Foo
  def bar(baz)
     baz&&.(:qux, 'whatever')
  end
end
~~~

----------------------------------------
Feature #12263: Feature request: &&. operator (shorthand for foo && foo.method)
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12263#change-58694

* 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>