Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110401
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPyj-LBiaLyXfYGkW+h2eOCOdHYhJ16X=sx79v97x=0aUOXQZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-AHAsUuHgCmBVeCd2D=WikCjxYQWLi=unXxRO=ERUo8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c-AHAsUuHgCmBVeCd2D=WikCjxYQWLi=unXxRO=ERUo8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:09:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPyj-LC=zaDjJQSkFS01AN3uuhVPvMFCnMo7vb=_2WjUDWRf+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe operator
From: tovilo.ilija@gmail.com (Ilija Tovilo)

Hi Nikita

>> I'd like to introduce another RFC I've been working on:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullsafe_operator
>
> The semantics look reasonable to me, but I'd recommend including some
> discussion on the rationale behind the short-circuiting behavior in the
> RFC. That is, what the options are, and why this is the best option (which
> is not the option that the previous RFC on this topic picked). It would
> also be nice to cross-reference semantics of ?-> in other languages that
> have it, to make sure we don't introduce any unexpected WTFs for people
> switching between languages. I think the specified behavior is consistent
> with what everyone else does, but I haven't checked to be sure.

Thanks for your feedback. I added a short analysis of the most popular
programming languages as well as a list of benefits and drawbacks of
short circuiting.

We might still go into detail on what the languages that do short
circuiting consider part of the chain. If it doesn't clutter the RFC
too much I will do that.

Ilija