Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107686
Message-ID: <09AB755E-4A05-4D19-8276-BFD658D92EED@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_48F9D3A3-AAFC-4BC2-B48B-792B66E1CC96"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:54:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAN=NbALwq=t1S2BukRp1mzbehq8ixRyKe-zHF2905K5eHCJYhw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Ken Stanley <dohpaz@gmail.com>
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>
 <CAN=NbAKO7ZGCff3DKSEtw1mox9J=j7u=Xke-0CE0fJOK1KsbNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5db21f54.1c69fb81.eda99.d428SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAN=NbALwq=t1S2BukRp1mzbehq8ixRyKe-zHF2905K5eHCJYhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] anti-coalescing-operator
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_48F9D3A3-AAFC-4BC2-B48B-792B66E1CC96
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Ken Stanley <dohpaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would be keen to see the more expressive techniques that retain the
> succinctness of having a not-null coalescing operator.


When I read your first example, I immediately thought I would handle =
your example in this way:

$user->setFName( $_SERVER[ 'fname' ] ?? null );
$user->setLName( $_SERVER[ 'lname' ] ?? null );
$user->setMName( $_SERVER[ 'mname' ] ?? null );
$user->setPhone( $_SERVER[ 'phone' ] ?? null );
$user->setEmail( $_SERVER[ 'email' ] ?? null );

Admittedly it does not require the functionality of your proposed =
operator, and it delegates the null handling to the set*() methods, but =
it is more succinct and does not require duplicating `$_SERVER[ '*' ]`, =
so it would be a winner for me.=20

I also do not mind putting more effort into writing functions if it =
means less effort required to call the functions. But maybe that is just =
me?

Your 2nd example was more compelling for me, but Sara's nullsafe calls =
RFC uses a syntax that is more clear and obvious to me.

Is there a 3rd or 4th use-case you have that are unlike the first two?

-Mike



--Apple-Mail=_48F9D3A3-AAFC-4BC2-B48B-792B66E1CC96--