I like it; code seems cleaner to me with its use. However, since the syntax
is so similar to optional chaining, it's too bad your goal with this sample
is to check for falsey values rather than nullish values.

[ 1, ?...(condition && [2, 3]), // no extras:) 3, ]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 6:01 PM Beknar Askarov <beknaraskarov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Problem
>
> Spreading is great! It contributes towards "declerativity" of the language
> and reduces verbosity. I see one more feature to add to improve it.
>
> Consider following
>
> [
>   1,
>   condition && 2,
>   condition && 3,
>   4,
> ].filter(Boolean) // filtering needed to remove falsy values
> // Results in
> [1, 2, 3, 4] // if condition is `truthy`// and
> [1, 4] // if not truthy.
>
> Another way to achieve the same result without the need of filtering after
>
> [
>   1,
>    ...(condition ? [2, 3] : []), // note extra [] in the end, to avoid errors
>   4,
> ]
>
> Similar pattern with objects
>
> {
>   ...(condition ? { foo: 'bar' } : {}), // extra {}
> }
>
> Another pattern is when condition is the object itself, when it is known
> that type is one or falsy
>
> [
>   item1,
>   item2,
>   ...(itemsOrNull || []) // extra []
> ]
>
> Similar for objects
>
> {
>   ...(obj || {}), // extra {}
> }
>
> I see these patterns appearing very often. And these are cleanest examples
> I have seen so far.
> ProposalOptional spreadingWith condition
>
> // Arrays
> [
>   1,
>   ?...(condition && [2, 3]), // no extras:)
>   3,
> ]// Objects
> {
>   ?...(condition && { foo: 'bar' }) // no extras:)
> }
>
> When condition is the object
>
> [
>   item1,
>   item2,
>   ?...itemsOrNull // no extras at all:) even (...)
> ]
>
> These look nicer and can be good for performance since (?...), since no
> cleanup is needed after to remove falsy values or extra spreading even when
> it is not needed.
>
> Looks intuitive (since: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining
> )
> Plays nice with typeings.
>
> What do you think? https://es.discourse.group/t/optional-spreading/93
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190822/194acc2e/attachment-0001.html>

I like it; code seems cleaner to me with its use. However, since the syntax
is so similar to optional chaining, it's too bad your goal with this sample
is to check for falsey values rather than nullish values.

```js
[ 1, ?...(condition && [2, 3]), /* no extras:) */ 3, ]
```