Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112962
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-78-g36b56e8-fm-20210120.001-g36b56e88
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d9303782-1928-4e44-a676-233615f02870@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAESVnVrNOw4jFhV4Ebr6tn=+XsEiVb=9W=KupWFmGnoHSz9NxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <766fb62e-9413-4472-89be-6557a45c64c8@Spark>
 <19bd9792-b966-4b8e-af24-a8e4399f7a2f@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAESVnVrNOw4jFhV4Ebr6tn=+XsEiVb=9W=KupWFmGnoHSz9NxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:40:05 -0600
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Null Coalescing Assignment in Method Signature
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, at 4:37 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:29 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm unclear why you'd allow null at all then.
> >  If you want $bar to be optional, and to be an empty array if not
> specified, then just do:
> >
> > function foo(array $bar = []) { ... }
> >
> > At that point, the only thing adding ?array does is allow you to
> explicitly pass null,
> > presumably because it has some meaning to your function.
> > If you don't want that, don't allow it.
> >
> 
> Smells a little like it's verging on the `default` proposal that was
> brought up awhile ago...
> 
> function foo(int $a, array $b = [], string $c = '') { ... }
> foo(123, default, "bar");
> 
> In this case, foo() never wants `null` as a valid value, but neither does
> the caller actually want anything different from the default.
> 
> Allowing a null-coalescish sort of initializer is another potential way to
> solve this problem, and I'm not here to say I endorse any of them, but
> maybe that's the intent.
> 
> -Sara

I'd argue that named arguments have rendered the main argument for `default` null and void.

(How many puns can he squeeze into one sentence, Bob?)

--Larry Garfield