Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:11062 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51683 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Jul 2004 08:46:55 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51608 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 08:46:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xaxa.search.ch) (195.141.85.117) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2004 08:46:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524AA6D841; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:46:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F40F56D871; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:46:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cschneid.com (ultrafilter-i [192.168.85.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by xaxa.search.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CA16D85F; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:46:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <40EFACFB.4030009@cschneid.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:46:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, de-ch, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sascha Schumann Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , Marc Richards , internals@lists.php.net References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040707203931.02fa6200@mail.ionzoft.com> <40ED64A0.7050305@cschneid.com> <20040708151952.92187.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708215205.23281.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708222005.4329.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708233326.73283.qmail@pb1.pair.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on xaxa.search.ch X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) Sascha Schumann wrote: > This rule would favor the "a ? : b" notation - which has > been supported by GCC for at least five years. My personal reasons against ?: : - It's non-standard and not well known even though GCC supports it. - It's hard to look up. - It's easily confused with $a ? $b : $c; - It's ugly (-:C I'd even prefer the Perl 6 err operator over it which is '//' or 'err' (low precedence) but then // is already the C++-style comment which I wish we hadn't introduced to PHP to start with :-) But unless convinced otherwise I think a pseudo-function like coalesce() is the way to go. - Chris