Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:11067 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14218 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Jul 2004 12:23:21 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14181 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 12:23:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx.thebrainroom.net) (69.55.226.195) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2004 12:23:21 -0000 Received: by mx.thebrainroom.net (Postfix, from userid 517) id 79D851488036; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BAUMBART (p508EB189.dip.t-dialin.net [80.142.177.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.thebrainroom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5301F1488035; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:23:23 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <339643899.20040710142323@marcus-boerger.de> To: Christian Schneider Cc: Sascha Schumann , Rasmus Lerdorf , Marc Richards , In-Reply-To: <40EFACFB.4030009@cschneid.com> 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> <40EFACFB.4030009@cschneid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on jc.thebrainroom.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: X-TBR-Filter: Virus scanned and defanged Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Christian, Saturday, July 10, 2004, 10:46:51 AM, you wrote: > 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 : $c; > - It's ugly (-:C Yeah all good reasons against. Maybe i could add that GCC's ?: is different from the intended behavior because we are doing "isset($a) ? $a : $b" in contrast to "$a ? $a : $b" Best regards, Marcus mailto:helly@php.net