Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106957
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c9Kc6m_bv=aJxbD3-RmnNXXLqv6mPjHp7U7qxX_ck27qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_KHYm1SLOKkZXM6xurYiDTX3=hbijpD8rT1OSUHSod_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CEC35EF9-9956-44BE-8C8E-EE5FC3D5A7C7@gmail.com> <D5DDA318-E953-4AB8-873F-7CA7264722E2@koalephant.com>
 <E30D9A22-9842-4A67-ABA5-A339875FFE12@gmail.com> <CAG9XoMTG3OLbD0BfWv+ORUUsbMV2CaF0Ea4NLF1huHBr5JCmWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKrftDt1ohJQLrgx+n57nf-TMVpUKYRVKWBkCa-ND1LVMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+C07KABQcZ9x+vgH8pYdVcGZcx6m8Dg+E+LYn1RgOLoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DED63BF6-96C5-475B-A263-C2E71961D8A6@gmail.com> <CALKiJKrMBXutarZLeZi4ctC0Xe6j-kW6VExXVujZad-uetxv4w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKrMBXutarZLeZi4ctC0Xe6j-kW6VExXVujZad-uetxv4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:13:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-_U4yLhRtczMkwtiCAydDWsrJcCbzSZB6YW1NCo-EG4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069366805925bbecb"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--00000000000069366805925bbecb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:11 PM Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 14:55, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > Le 12 sept. 2019 =C3=A0 15:33, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> a =C3=
=A9crit :
> >
> > $foo[$key1][$key2] =3D ($foo[$key1][$key2] ?? 0) + 1;
> >
> > Marco Pivetta
> >
> >
> > That violates blatantly DRY (twice the exact same lengthy expression
> > `$foo[$key1][$key2]`), so it is not a satisfactory solution.
> >
>
>
> Agreed; it's certainly neater than all the isset() checks, but it's
> definitely a bit ugly.
>
> To clarify my point, the reason why people write this:
>
> $foo[$key1][$key2]++;
>
> Is not because they're lazy, it's because *it expresses their intent*.
>
> The ?key syntax was one suggestion for how to express the intent safely i=
n
> that particular scenario. Another way might be that the array is
> initialised a different way; completely off the top of my head, something
> like this:
>
> $foo =3D new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, int=3D0>>;
>
> That could express the intent of "this variable is going to be used as an
> accumulator with these dimensions".
>
> The "if isset" lines, in my opinion, don't express any intent, and they
> don't protect against any real errors; they're just noise to work around =
a
> short-coming in the language.


FTR this is basically what Python does via defaultdict:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.html#collections.defaultdict

I think it is the "cleanest" solution to this problem overall. Though it
does need a separate structure, rather than our favorite PHP array.

Nikita

--00000000000069366805925bbecb--