Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107674
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <CAH0Uv3FO3aTHHzQ+dLLc-q-mJzdjkR3wz-GcKVhWJ7pUTL2sqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP=w73XojOXYayXaXsFzoqD-iCq-CMWMAsV=1ie6tuTv+rkxEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP=w73XojOXYayXaXsFzoqD-iCq-CMWMAsV=1ie6tuTv+rkxEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:52:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN=NbAKO7ZGCff3DKSEtw1mox9J=j7u=Xke-0CE0fJOK1KsbNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kosit Supanyo <webdevxp.com@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000b88f0595af0fe5"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] anti-coalescing-operator
From: dohpaz@gmail.com (Ken Stanley)

--00000000000000b88f0595af0fe5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 5:19 PM Kosit Supanyo <webdevxp.com@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ken
>
> I totally agree with Andreas especially:
>
> One purpose of the operator should be that you don't have to repeat
>> the variable. Here you do, e.g. $_SERVER['fname']
>
>
> But if this operator provide some way not to repeat the variable it will
> make sense. For example:
>
> $_SERVER['fname'] !??  $user->setName($$)
>

I asked Andreas for their opinion on why this is bad in this context?
Especially since if I were to use a traditional ternary or if condition,
then I'd still be repeating the variable.


>
> But I think this functionality should be of something like pipeline
> operator:
>
> // send tmp variable to the next expression unconditionally
> $ret = $_SERVER['fname'] |>  $user->setName($$);
> // send tmp variable to the next expression only when $_SERVER['fname'] is
> set.
> $ret = $_SERVER['fname'] ?|>  $user->setName($$);
>
> Also the syntax like above will be consistent with the proposed
> safe-navigation operators.
>

I'm more interested in having a negation operator for the null-coalescing
operator, especially since cognatively it should be easy to discern what it
does. I've personally not seen |>, and I'd be confused as to what it does
(e.g., is it a bitwise OR on a greater than comparison?).

Thank you! The idea of $$ is neat, but not quite what I'm trying to achieve
here. If anything, wouldn't that facilitate a different RFC?

- Ken Stanley

--00000000000000b88f0595af0fe5--