Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:11007
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <20040708234919.24862.qmail@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:48:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040708191525.023e7ff0@mail.ionzoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040708191525.023e7ff0@mail.ionzoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language
From: contact_marcos@yahoo.es (Marc Richards)



Jason Garber wrote:

> 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.

I don't think it would be *highly* confusing to someone who has already 
used a ternary statement.  If they haven't then even a ternary statement 
would be confusing.  In either case I think good documentation would be 
important.

I am still on the fence about the asymmetry in that one tests isset() 
while the other doesn't


> Marcus made an excellent point about the 2 versions of the function:
>    1) $a = ifsetor($b)
>    2) $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)
> 

See my response to Marcus' post

> 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?
> 

I am interested in the new construct for the exact same reason, E_ALL 
development.  I am intersted in the ?: operator because it looks alot 
simpler, especially if you want to chain them together:

$user = $_SESSION['user] ?: $_POST['user'] ?: $local_user ?: NULL;

I am not even sure if marcus' patch allowed you to nest multiple 
ifsetor() calls...either way, my main goal is simplicity.  I am not just 
trying to be contentious, I am actually interested in a good solution.


Marc