Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:19820
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <4363DB35.7080808@safesearching.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:27:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Beaver <cellog@php.net>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
References: <4362C5F4.8090004@safesearching.com> <4e36d31d0510281847m3f54c70dy8b2a0679fa3c6cec@mail.gmail.com> <4362DFAB.1090701@safesearching.com> <43630958.4060406@php.net>
In-Reply-To: <43630958.4060406@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language
From: james@safesearching.com (James Crumpton)

A good point certainly... I suppose it could continue to follow the 
current form, evaluating $c as false and return int(1) instead of 
bool(true). Though that would probably diminish it's utility for 'if set 
or'. And there would be a BC break for those doing:

$a = $b || $c;

if ($a === true) {
}

But anyone doing that should probably have their head examined.

Anyway...

Regardless of what can be said about changing the behavior of '||', the 
same isn't true for '||=', as it has no precedence in PHP.

-james

Greg Beaver wrote:

>James Crumpton wrote:
>  
>
>>Evaluating an idea based on it's syntactic similarities to other
>>languages is complete and utter nonsense. It has nothing to with being
>>like language Xyz. It has to do with familiarity to language constructs.
>>One already understands the idea of 'this || that'. It's certainly
>>    
>>
>
>I'll throw the water on this one:
>
><?php
>$c = 0;
>$a = 1;
>var_dump($c || $a);
>?>
>
>With the existing PHP, this script results in:
>
>bool(true)
>
>With your proposed change because it would return the first non-null set
>variable, it will instead output:
>
>int(0)
>
>Changing true into false consitutes a rather severe BC break :).
>
>Greg
>
>  
>