Usage with Optional Chaining

[boopathi]

Call semantics and Usage with optional chaining proposal

1. Is it possible to combine optional chaining operator and shorthand access for private property ? - I assume the answer is No and use this?.#x?
2. Related to Call semantics #85 : in the below defined method foo, #x and this.#x should refer to the same private field of instance p.

class A {
  #x;
  constructor(x, a) {
    #x = x;
    this.foo = this.foo.bind(a);
  }
  foo() {
    console.log(this?.#x); // optional chaining - logs undefined for `p.foo()`

    // Possible to use optional chaining for #x ?

    // And does this.#x and #x refer to same thing?
    console.log(#x, this.#x); // both should throw for `p.foo()`
  }
}

const p = new A(10);
const q = new A(20, p);

p.foo(); // should throw here?
q.foo();

[ljharb]

Absent the chaining operator, of course p.foo() should throw because it's bound to undefined, and not an instance of A.

The #x shorthand has been deferred to a separate proposal, but yes, I believe #x and this.#x would always mean the same thing.

[bakkot]

See #78.

We haven't worked out the interaction yet, though. As this proposal is more advanced than that one, I expect it will be worked out as part of advancing it, rather than here.

[littledan]

@boopathi To answer the question, I think we could add a x?.#y operator (as described in #78), but the optional chaining proposal is evolving towards including only useful operations, and it's a bit hard for me to believe that this is a useful combination.