Update glb-parser #5219
Update glb-parser #5219
Conversation
| const process = options && options.camera && options.camera.process || createCamera; | ||
| const postprocess = options && options.camera && options.camera.postprocess; | ||
| const preprocess = options?.camera?.preprocess; | ||
| const process = options?.camera?.process || createCamera; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to standardize on ?? instead of || for these kinds of use cases? Which means 'if the left side is null or undefined, use the right side' (rather than a logical op).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah updating to ?? would make sense. I have a followup PR already which is based on this one and will update to ?? there (since some have been removed).
| const preprocess = options && options.camera && options.camera.preprocess; | ||
| const process = options && options.camera && options.camera.process || createCamera; | ||
| const postprocess = options && options.camera && options.camera.postprocess; | ||
| const preprocess = options?.camera?.preprocess; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if we should prescribe a set coding style for options objects. In my code, I've been using a default parameter (empty object) for options objects. But, of course, that will allocate on every call potentially. Whereas using ?. everywhere is a bit more verbose and might transpile to more code via Babel?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure how that would work here. Could you give a code snippet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, you'd still need the second ?. regardless. TBH, it's not a big deal.
This PR modernises glb-parser.js by converting functions to arrow functions and replacing instances of
options && options.foo && options.foo.barwithoptions?.foo?.bar.