[docs] Include examples not related to ?.

[rattrayalex]

This is a proposal that would be beneficial regardless of whether ?. passes.

eg;

const foo = getMaybeFoo() ?? defaultFoo

[ljharb]

Agreed - this operator is useful on its own.

It's also particularly useful in jsx with React:

<div>
  {ifZeroThisIsAFootgun && bar}
  {!!thisIsTheCurrentWorkaround && bar}
  {orThis ? bar : null}
  {butThisIsAlwaysSafe ?? bar}
</div>

[Mouvedia]

I find foo ?? false super useful. I needed something like that last week.

[alangpierce]

@ljharb I think in your example you actually want a different operator. true ?? <div /> will be true, which isn't what you want.

?? is a more precise version of || for implementing the "default value" use case, and I think you want an operator that's a more precise version of && for implementing the "conditional value" use case. I guess it would be a OP b meaning a ? b : null (or undefined). That's somewhat related to #4 in that both attempt to be like &&, although the operator proposed there wouldn't fit that use case.

One way of thinking about it is that, for these use cases, || is imprecise in how it deals with inputs, whereas && is imprecise in the output it produces.

[ljharb]

@alangpierce that is in fact exactly what I want, because in the common use case, the first operand is always null or a React element.

[ScottRudiger]

[docs] Include examples not related to ?.

This is a proposal that would be beneficial regardless of whether ?. passes.

eg;

const foo = getMaybeFoo() ?? defaultFoo

Seconding this as it wasn't clear to me from the README alone that this would be possible (had to look through the issues).