Applies to:
Status: Open

Issue hasn't been assigned a status value.
// imagine having a list that your code accesses heavily...
// but there's no guarantee said list is always initialized.

// currently, everywhere you access the list has to be written as:
somelist && somelist[index]

// my suggestion would shorten this to:

...Normally I'd create a proc for the sake of sanity checking, but that becomes non-viable when you have many frequently used lists. For now I've resorted to always having the lists initialized, but I figured I'd toss this suggestion out there.

if(somelist && (i = somelist[index]))

is a pattern I type pretty much constantly.
Also +1 from me, I pretty much do exactly what Ter does all over the place.
. already works for lists, like so:
var/list/foo = list("bar")
world.log << foo.[1]

this prints out "bar"

?. is however an error:

expected var or proc name after ?. operator
I'd have liked to have this frequently in the past
Bumping this again because I was reminded by some code that I still want this. ?. has been shown to be a micro optimization in some places which is nice in the very hot code. A similar functionality for lists would allow me to slightly speed up some code like the following

if(somelist && somelist[key])

It's not on the list for 513 but I'm open to it for 514.