Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:11002
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040708191525.023e7ff0@mail.ionzoft.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:15:43 -0400
To: internals@lists.php.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language
From: jason@ionzoft.com (Jason Garber)

The original reason that I asked for this functionality was to make it 
significantly easier to work with E_ALL error reporting.  When I say 
easier, I mean by reducing duplicate code.

//This
$foo = (integer) ifsetor($_POST['foo'], 0);

//Instead of
$foo = (integer) (isset($_POST['foo']) ? $_POST['foo'] : 0);

It was also to be useful for accessing array elements that may or may not 
be there.

I strongly agree with Ramsus that ?: is far to close to the ternary 
operator and would prove to be *highly* confusing to beginners.

Marcus made an excellent point about the 2 versions of the function:
    1) $a = ifsetor($b)
    2) $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)


By the way, I'm not stuck on ifsetor() as a name, but
    a) the name should be short and clear
    b) the construct must be called with function like syntax


Marc,
I must ask, why are you so opposed to the function() syntax?  There has 
been quite a few reasons stated against the operator syntax, but I haven't 
heard any reason why we should not go with the function() syntax?


Sincerely,
Jason Garber