mirror of
https://github.com/nushell/nushell.git
synced 2024-11-08 09:34:30 +01:00
6a274b860a
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/nushell/nushell/pull/8379 and https://github.com/nushell/nushell/discussions/8502. This PR makes it so that the new `?` syntax for marking a path member as optional short-circuits, as voted on in the [8502](https://github.com/nushell/nushell/discussions/8502) poll. Previously, `{ foo: 123 }.bar?.baz` would raise an error: ``` > { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz × Data cannot be accessed with a cell path ╭─[entry #15:1:1] 1 │ { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz · ─┬─ · ╰── nothing doesn't support cell paths ╰──── ``` Here's what was happening: 1. The `bar?` path member access returns `nothing` because there is no field named `bar` on the record 2. The `baz` path member access fails when trying to access a `baz` field on that `nothing` value After this change, `{ foo: 123 }.bar?.baz` returns `nothing`; the failed `bar?` access immediately returns `nothing` and the `baz` access never runs. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| tests | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| README.md | ||
nu-protocol
The nu-protocol crate holds the definitions of structs/traits that are used throughout Nushell. This gives us one way to expose them to many other crates, as well as make these definitions available to each other, without causing mutually recursive dependencies.