From 3955bcb2e39111bfbf51d9210c6bbf3857b7846a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: boyned//Kampfkarren <boynedmaster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 23:00:07 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Add more notes about short circuiting, include equivalent
 if-else expressions

---
 rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md b/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
index f89fcadf..dff9c9fe 100644
--- a/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
+++ b/rfcs/syntax-safe-navigation-operator.md
@@ -77,9 +77,16 @@ Failing the nil-safety check early would make the entire expression nil, for ins
 The list of valid operators to follow the safe navigation operator would be:
 
 ```lua
-dog?.name
-dog?.getName()
-dog?:getName()
+dog?.name == if dog == nil then nil else dog.name
+dog?.getName() == if dog == nil then nil else dog.getName()
+dog?:getName(args) == if dog == nil then nil else dog:getName(args)
+```
+
+When using safe navigation to call a function, the short circuiting will prevent the arguments from being evaluated in the case of nil.
+
+```lua
+-- Will NOT call getValue() if `object` is nil
+object?.doSomething(getValue())
 ```
 
 The operator must be used in the context of either a call or an index, and so: