Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51835
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=UNZaz5VcKZ5teMGorrJ7YjVLnkO6r41wgpwlT7MGwpYYZSmbSKtxWTMlvd0hwj8WwV
         EUckwcR3NUmXOmGz8gxatHvcu4q6n9PCnXeu7QpPacuNfDWwKwE7Koihgizn+Zt5D9dD
         H5mUZY/Fia9TyNH3ezL8b1oGg8wU6gUL3wzpc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=LvYLaOoGgrzrWfYbQ+t9Wzv_XeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiknomAsTrsZ140rWs6CwxJP3UYGUokQbERhDiRp@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D950434.3060704@yahoo.com.au> <BANLkTinzb5xiD8j7ZXB+cT4EBZY3DF6BYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D9E0543.1080600@lerdorf.com> <69.82.36433.EC33E9D4@pb1.pair.com>
 <4D9E34C4.5000406@lerdorf.com> <4D9E429B.20503@sugarcrm.com>
 <4D9E96B6.6060401@lerdorf.com> <BANLkTi=LvYLaOoGgrzrWfYbQ+t9Wzv_XeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 02:32:09 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTinf07mwhrubgotSO7T9qSXO4KcOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Richardson <simpleshot@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2df946a8e7404a0633ad8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
From: dukeofgaming@gmail.com (dukeofgaming)

--000e0cd2df946a8e7404a0633ad8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi, just to drop an opinion on something I felt natural when reading this:
how about a word instead?:

$value = 'Not set' unless $a['key'];

I think it would be way more readable.

Regards,

David

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Adam Richardson <simpleshot@gmail.com>wrote:

> >
> >
> >>  We need to be careful about changing the beahviour of existing
> > operators.
> >
>
> Indeed.
>
> The '?' character already is special, so using '??' seems like a safe,
> practical approach. However, I'd prefer maintaining the form of the
> standard
> ternary operator with the colon ($value = $var['bar'] ?? : 'Bar was not
> set'; // value ="Bar was not) so the '??' operator could be applied in any
> situation that one would normally use the standard ternary operator.
>
> // standard
> $value = isset($a[$key]) ? $a[$key] : 'Not set';
>
> // new ?? double ternary that performs isset check and omits second
> expression
> $value = $a[$key] ?? : 'Not set';
>
> // new ?? double ternary that performs isset check and uses second
> expression
> $value = $a[$key] ?? strtoupper($a[$key]) : 'Not set';
>
> Granted, the last example might be infrequent, but I think there's also a
> value in keeping the form of the double ternary (if used at all) the same
> as
> the standard ternary operator for consistency sake.
>
> Adam
>
> --
> Nephtali:  A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework
> http://nephtaliproject.com
>

--000e0cd2df946a8e7404a0633ad8--