Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107668
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAN=NbAL5r7m3hSi5FgobHpxoOL0Rei=QbqegtJsRi8WnE4kX9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuSNp+DeE+8+Wb+xSyMU0g-gV-3P-NEV_wdLNbFOxZk0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN=NbAJfHzxW+bLACOD=CVg7y3wV26s+tp_cxCvR44W+4OWJ5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0dcd4be8-1fd9-068c-5025-a721513ab347@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:24:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN=NbAJfHzxW+bLACOD=CVg7y3wV26s+tp_cxCvR44W+4OWJ5A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] anti-coalescing-operator
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

Hi Ken,

This is definitely an interesting idea, and when described as "the 
opposite of ??" the !?? syntax makes sense.

Looking at the example, though, the "negating" part becomes a bit confusing.

The verbose form reads naturally as a positive assertion - "if this is 
set, do this":
>          if (isset($_SERVER['fname']) {
>              $user->setName($_SERVER['fname']);
>          }


If we used the ?? operator, it would be a negative, "if this is not set, 
do this":

>          $_SERVER['fname'] ?? $user->unsetName();

So the short-hand form becomes a kind of double negative - "if this is 
not set, don't do this", or "if this is not not set, do this":

>          $_SERVER['fname'] !?? $user->setName($_SERVER['fname']);


That makes me think that the choice of syntax isn't quite right, but I'm 
not sure what to suggest instead.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]