Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113251
Message-ID: <37099727-B15D-4B6B-AD04-3E309E350417@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D1DA2FD-6790-40B3-8C1C-127000255EBE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:27:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKxLw-6ZH3yO+tro_KnUoRaOH-UqmDWuXdNiAP-2e3kLKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
References: <CAEsg9X2Zshqw1bHE7rNey6VotvKgs1i8+zJGSmFp-+JWPnJrww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9xgJjMD8XWhT6rYLyJsLOBROZvL19u2G00M3cVn7_8fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKzZeQxSBV91SxCpxLdvbOXcm_gauX3qwXUatsi__Ns5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMA5aFb-fyj=o763ecuiXZrvfpUMpXjL5_=c=u1x67KXycBYbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2664e2ef-b965-407c-90fc-77480846a3ad@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAMA5aFZK3k7JXFO3sibGN9Yg2NtQmts2u-dTSBYv2N6Usajmkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <84020328-b623-bca1-0c9c-0f7195e08d23@gmail.com>
 <8CD7D960-51FA-45FE-B88F-2A18BA768DA4@newclarity.net>
 <CAPKYkKzvwhw0fk1OJNG0_iUYRR9_Htk+heXL3yp5waypkTxkqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D81CFBDF-445C-4449-BC9E-07D78CD0805C@newclarity.net>
 <CAPKYkKxLw-6ZH3yO+tro_KnUoRaOH-UqmDWuXdNiAP-2e3kLKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inline conditional that returns null if falsy
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_6D1DA2FD-6790-40B3-8C1C-127000255EBE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Feb 24, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:35 AM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net =
<mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote:
>=20
>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com =
<mailto:chasepeeler@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:27 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net =
<mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote:
>> > On Feb 23, 2021, at 2:05 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com =
<mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >=20
>> > On 23/02/2021 18:41, Albert Casademont wrote:
>> >> Sure, it's not a big deal having to write the ": null" but it =
doesn't add
>> >> any value
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > On the contrary, it adds an important piece of information: that =
the default value is "null", rather than "false", or "0", or "new =
EmptyValue()".
>> > For instance, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that this code =
should produce a null:
>> >=20
>> > $items =3D [];
>> > $itemCount =3D $items ? count($items);
>> >=20
>> > I might be more convinced that "null" is the "natural" value if the =
left-hand operand was only checked against null, not "falsiness": in =
that case, you can read it as "if it's null, leave it alone". I'd still =
be inclined towards "too specific to use up more syntax", though.
>>=20
>> If you look at it from a software engineering perspective =E2=80=94 =
which is how I assume most on this thread have been looking at it =E2=80=94=
 being more explicit in the code is probably a better practice than =
saving a few keystrokes.
>>=20
>> OTOH, if you view it from the perspective of a *templating* language =
=E2=80=94 which is what PHP was initially created to be, for the web =E2=80=
=94 then the reduction in visual noise from omitting ": null" would be a =
nice plus. And in the case of templating, the distinction between null =
vs. false vs. "" would be completely moot.
>>=20
>>=20
>> But PHP isn't just a templating language anymore.
>=20
> It is not?  If it is not I think a lot of userland PHP developers =
never got that decree.
>=20
>=20
> I didn't say it COULDN'T be used for templating

It would benefit when PHP *is* used for templating which is still not an =
insignificant use of PHP, and this one simple thing would make templates =
easier to read.

> (although even then I'd suggest utilizing a library like smarty or =
twig)

A long time ago I read an article on SitePoint that argued that using =
templating languages like Smarty or Twig made no sense because PHP *is* =
a templating language. =20

That stuck with me and for many (most?) use-cases I still agree with it.

> but that it is a lot more than that. I'd also say that, good or bad, =
the direction of the language in the last 15+ years has been to make it =
a robust language that can be used for more than just templating.=20

I think it is specious to imply allowing $foo ? $bar to return null when =
$foo=3D=3Dnil would make PHP a less robust language.

> Well it's pretty obvious. If php currently supported a statement like =
"$user ? 'online'" then a change that requires the third argument would =
break every single instance of code that didn't have one and wouldn't =
provide any functional gains as nothing prevents people from adding on =
the ": null" if they want to. It's a moot point, though, because PHP =
doesn't support it. I just included that statement to give context to my =
views  - that I'm not automatically in favor of changes just because =
they enforce better development practices.=20

So 1.) if PHP allowed  "$user ? 'online'" and then 2.) PHP later =
disallowed it then 3.) the second action would created BC concerns?

Yes, that is a moot point with respect to the proposal posed by this =
thread.

 -Mike=

--Apple-Mail=_6D1DA2FD-6790-40B3-8C1C-127000255EBE--