The same discussion happens to be on TypeScript and ES6 worlds.

Using .. instead of ?. or .? because it's way more clear when you are using the ternary ? : operator on the same line.

If it's not a conflict in Ruby syntax perhaps worths looking at

https://esdiscuss.org/topic/existential-operator-null-propagation-operator#content-65

https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/16#issuecomment-152275052

Posting the markdown info from there:

This would be amazing operator!! Especially for ES6 / ES7 / TypeScript - and why not Ruby ?

var error = a . b . c . d ; //this would fail with error if a, b or c are null or undefined. var current = a && a . b && a . b . c && a . b . c . d ; // the current messy way to handle this var currentBrackets = a && a [ ' b ' ] && a [ ' b ' ][ ' c ' ] && a [ ' b ' ][ ' c ' ][ ' d ' ]; //the current messy way to handle this var typeScript = a ?. b ?. c ?. d ; // The typescript way of handling the above mess with no errors var typeScriptBrackets = a ?[ ' b ' ]?[ ' c ' ]?[ ' d ' ]; //The typescript of handling the above mess with no errors

However I propose a more clear one - as not to confuse ? from the a ? b : c statements with a?.b statements:

var doubleDots = a .. b .. c .. d ; //this would be ideal to understand that you assume that if any of a, b, c is null or undefined the result will be null or undefined. var doubleDotsWithBrackets = a ..[ ' b ' ]..[ ' c ' ]..[ ' d ' ];

For the bracket notation, I recommend two dots instead of a single one as it's consistent with the others when non brackets are used. Hence only the property name is static or dynamic via brackets.

Two dots, means if its null or undefined stop processing further and assume the result of expression is null or undefined . (as d would be null or undefined ).

Two dots make it more clear, more visible and more space-wise so you understand what's going on.

This is not messing with numbers too - as is not the same case e.g.

1 .. toString (); // works returning '1' var x = {}; x . 1 = { y : ' test ' }; //fails currently x [ 1 ] = { y : ' test ' }; //works currently var current = x [ 1 ]. y ; //works var missing = x [ 2 ]. y ; //throws exception var assume = x && x [ 2 ] && x [ 2 ]. y ; // works but very messy

About numbers two options: Your call which one can be adopted, but I recommend first one for compatibility with existing rules!

Should fail as it does now ( x.1.y == runtime error )

var err = x .. 1 .. y ; // should fail as well, since 1 is not a good property name, nor a number to call a method, since it's after x object.

Should work since it understands that is not a number calling a property from Number.prototype

var err = x .. 1 .. y ; // should work as well, resulting 'test' in this case var err = x .. 2 .. y ; // should work as well, resulting undefined in this case

With dynamic names:

var correct1 = x ..[ 1 ].. y ; //would work returning 'test' var correct2 = x ..[ 2 ].. y ; //would work returning undefined;

What do you think folks?

P.S. foo?.bar and foo?['bar'] syntax would work too.

However the using both current ? : operator and ?. might be very confusing on the same line.

e.g. using ?. and ?['prop']

var a = { x : { y : 1 } }; var b = condition ? a ?. x .? y : a ?. y ?. z ; var c = condition ? a ?[ ' x ' ]?[ ' y ' ] : a ?[ ' y ' ]?[ ' z ' ];

as opposed to double dots .. and ..['prop']

var a = { x : { y : 1 } }; var b = condition ? a .. x .. y : a .. y .. z ; var c = condition ? a ..[ ' x ' ]..[ ' y ' ] : a ..[ ' y ' ]..[ ' z ' ];

Which one does look more clear to you?¶